A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

s

No. It's up to them.

Than the sort of emotional one-liners, absurd stereotypes and instant pigeonholing that occurs in most of the abortion threads here.

Agreed.
Now, here's a question. Let's say you are eight months pregnant, and you want the pregnancy terminated. At your request doctors remove the fetus. Once it is out of your body, and no longer affecting you - should you have the right to kill it?

Well, that's not generally true. In the US you have a lot of rights of self-determination, but those generally do not extend to harming others and/or putting others at risk. (Examples abound.)

The reason why I believe the issue becomes so emotional is because there is actual legislation going through that is denying access to abortion for many, mostly poor, women. Its not like some kind of abstract discussion but one that is actually rolling back rights that women have in virtually every Western industrialized nation in the world. Have you heard about the legislation in Texas that has shut down half of their abortion clinics? Well they only had 34 in the entire state to begin with.

The drinking and driving analogy is a bad one. The legislation about drinking and driving is to deter accidents that could kill or maim others who are not drinking but driving. What you are suggesting is that YOU have a stake on what goes on inside of my womb. What you are suggesting is that your concern begins and ends with a fetus coming to termination and that's it. Whatever affect an unwanted pregnancy has on the life of the woman or child after that fact is when your seeming concern ends. So if the woman cannot support a family, if she isn't emotionally or psychologically prepared, if she has no support, it remains her problem. If it limits her in any way its her problem. Not yours. Never yours. When some arbitrary stranger decides how I should live my life then yes it becomes a threat to my life. Because my life is my own and its real. The problems a woman has when she's forced to have a child she doesn't want are also real and its her who has to live it. Not you. Never you.

 

[billvon]

s\The reason why I believe the issue becomes so emotional is because there is actual legislation going through that is denying access to abortion for many, mostly poor, women. Its not like some kind of abstract discussion but one that is actually rolling back rights that women have in virtually every Western industrialized nation in the world. Have you heard about the legislation in Texas that has shut down half of their abortion clinics? Well they only had 34 in the entire state to begin with.

Agreed very much that it is not an abstract discussion, which is one reason it is so emotional. And the rights of women ARE under attack in many places, the US being just one.

The drinking and driving analogy is a bad one. The legislation about drinking and driving is to deter accidents that could kill or maim others who are not drinking but driving.

Sorry, I edited that post to remove that analogy since it often creates an emotional response.
The underlying issue is that we place restrictions on rights that harm others. And in the case of abortion there is very real harm done to a potential person. We as a society generally agree that the woman's rights trump those of the fetus - and in general I agree. However it is not the same as having a dangerous parasite removed, which is what some people compare it to.

What you are suggesting is that YOU have a stake on what goes on inside of my womb.

No, I'm not. However I am suggesting that I (and you) have a stake in what happens to people outside your womb.

What you are suggesting is that your concern begins and ends with a fetus coming to termination and that's it. Whatever affect an unwanted pregnancy has on the life of the woman or child after that fact is when your seeming concern ends. So if the woman cannot support a family, if she isn't emotionally or psychologically prepared, if she has no support, it remains her problem.

Again I am not suggesting that.

If it limits her in any way its her problem. Not yours. Never yours. When some arbitrary stranger decides how I should live my life then yes it becomes a threat to my life. Because my life is my own and its real. The problems a woman has when she's forced to have a child she doesn't want are also real and its her who has to live it. Not you. Never you.

This is a great example of how emotional this debate gets very quickly. I never suggested any of the things you list above - but you are already angry and are accusing me of forcing all sorts of things on women.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Agreed very much that it is not an abstract discussion, which is one reason it is so emotional. And the rights of women ARE under attack in many places, the US being just one.

Sorry, I edited that post to remove that analogy since it often creates an emotional response.
The underlying issue is that we place restrictions on rights that harm others. And in the case of abortion there is very real harm done to a potential person. We as a society generally agree that the woman's rights trump those of the fetus - and in general I agree. However it is not the same as having a dangerous parasite removed, which is what some people compare it to.

No, I'm not. However I am suggesting that I (and you) have a stake in what happens to people outside your womb.

Again I am not suggesting that.

This is a great example of how emotional this debate gets very quickly. I never suggested any of the things you list above - but you are already angry and are accusing me of forcing all sorts of things on women.

Potential being the operative word. What we're really talking about is the fork in the road. What could be if one takes one route instead of another. Some people might actually think of it as a parasite and if its a woman who thinks that then she's the last person I would want to go through a 9 month pregnancy. Only god knows what she would do.

Yes I fully agree we all have a stake on what happens to people outside of the womb. I am not angry with you. I haven't felt anything remotely like anger, I'm actually really really curious as to why people are so hell bent on denying a woman's access to abortion. If you are not arguing that abortion should be illegal then I only wrongly assumed that was your position. I asked you why because I'm interested in understanding why someone would personally care if a woman, some strange woman whom they've never met and will never meet, has an abortion.

 

[billvon]

Yes I fully agree we all have a stake on what happens to people outside of the womb. I am not angry with you. I haven't felt anything remotely like anger, I'm actually really really curious as to why people are so hell bent on denying a woman's access to abortion. If you are not arguing that abortion should be illegal then I only wrongly assumed that was your position. I asked you why because I'm interested in understanding why someone would personally care if a woman, some strange woman whom they've never met and will never meet, has an abortion.

I definitely do NOT think that abortion should be illegal. I would suggest that some of the people (like myself) who you think are "hell bent on denying a woman's access to abortion" really aren't doing that. I think there are a lot of gray areas out there that are too quickly categorized into "black" or "white" by both sides of the abortion debate, and that's why so little actual communication takes place.

BTW I understand why people want to restrict abortion access. They feel that it really is killing a potential child, and they imagine the lengths they would go to protect their children, even their unborn children. While I disagree with their conclusions I understand their take on it; many of them are quite rational people, and do not want to "decide how other people live their lives." They really do just want to protect the unborn.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I definitely do NOT think that abortion should be illegal. I would suggest that some of the people (like myself) who you think are "hell bent on denying a woman's access to abortion" really aren't doing that. I think there are a lot of gray areas out there that are too quickly categorized into "black" or "white" by both sides of the abortion debate, and that's why so little actual communication takes place.

BTW I understand why people want to restrict abortion access. They feel that it really is killing a potential child, and they imagine the lengths they would go to protect their children, even their unborn children. While I disagree with their conclusions I understand their take on it; many of them are quite rational people, and do not want to "decide how other people live their lives." They really do just want to protect the unborn.

Okay then what are the grey areas? Because I do think its black and white in the sense that a woman either wants or doesn't want. You know? I don't understand why its become such a mangled complex issue. For example I could never imagine having a controversial discussion about abortion in say Denmark. For the Danes its an issue of a woman who want's or doesn't want. Nothing else. So I think there are some cultural issues here and as Bells was explaining these issues are drawn from religious beliefs. Yet still I don't understand why these religious folk would care about what a woman who isn't a part of their group think does or doesn't do.

Abortion is the killing of a potential child but not an actual child. A child is only a child when their feet hits the ground so to speak. And why aren't these people who care so much about the unborn not harping on the issue of children being raised in poverty in this country? Why aren't they going on about all of the current reports concerning child hunger in this wealthy nation? I think I would take them more seriously if they were concerned with issues that directly affect women and children. Access to education (honest sex education as well as easy access to contraceptives), access to health care, access to economic support, access to community support. Programs to help mothers in need. Cheap safe housing for women in need not to mention affordable or even free child care. I guess I would believe them more if they were also actively focusing on all that because then I would know they are trying to build a society where a woman may not feel the need to have an abortion. There would of course still be some women who opt for an abortion but maybe there wouldn't be as many. But i don't hear anything about these issues. I only hear about the importance of the abstract potential.

 

[Balerion]

Okay then what are the grey areas? Because I do think its black and white in the sense that a woman either wants or doesn't want. You know? I don't understand why its become such a mangled complex issue. For example I could never imagine having a controversial discussion about abortion in say Denmark. For the Danes its an issue of a woman who want's or doesn't want. Nothing else. So I think there are some cultural issues here and as Bells was explaining these issues are drawn from religious beliefs. Yet still I don't understand why these religious folk would care about what a woman who isn't a part of their group think does or doesn't do.

You shouldn't take your cues from Bells. For instance, I am an atheist, and I believe that abortion is morally repugnant. But I also understand that, at least for the first 20 weeks or so, you're not dealing with a viable person, so I would not seek to impose a ban on abortions for any reason prior to that point. And I also agree with the primacy of the mother; her health comes first, always.

But at a certain point, we're not just dealing with a "potential person" (which, at that stage, is a crude term), but an actual person who can feel.

Also, I don't know what made you say that about Denmark, but you're apparently wrong. According to the wiki, abortions are legal, but only prior to the 12th week. So...yeah.

Abortion is the killing of a potential child but not an actual child. A child is only a child when their feet hits the ground so to speak.

I think that's a terrible way of deciding personhood. And the facts are not with you on this one, as has been demonstrated throughout the thread.

And why aren't these people who care so much about the unborn not harping on the issue of children being raised in poverty in this country? Why aren't they going on about all of the current reports concerning child hunger in this wealthy nation? I think I would take them more seriously if they were concerned with issues that directly affect women and children. Access to education (honest sex education as well as easy access to contraceptives), access to health care, access to economic support, access to community support. Programs to help mothers in need. Cheap safe housing for women in need not to mention affordable or even free child care. I guess I would believe them more if they were also actively focusing on all that because then I would know they are trying to build a society where a woman may not feel the need to have an abortion. There would of course still be some women who opt for an abortion but maybe there wouldn't be as many. But i don't hear anything about these issues. I only hear about the importance of the abstract potential.

Abortion rates in the US are at 30-year lows, and that is presumably due to increases in sexual education and access to contraception.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You shouldn't take your cues from Bells. For instance, I am an atheist, and I believe that abortion is morally repugnant. But I also understand that, at least for the first 20 weeks or so, you're not dealing with a viable person, so I would not seek to impose a ban on abortions for any reason prior to that point. And I also agree with the primacy of the mother; her health comes first, always.

But at a certain point, we're not just dealing with a "potential person" (which, at that stage, is a crude term), but an actual person who can feel.

Also, I don't know what made you say that about Denmark, but you're apparently wrong. According to the wiki, abortions are legal, but only prior to the 12th week. So...yeah.



I think that's a terrible way of deciding personhood. And the facts are not with you on this one, as has been demonstrated throughout the thread.



Abortion rates in the US are at 30-year lows, and that is presumably due to increases in sexual education and access to contraception.

Well there is a religious based movement behind pro life isn't there?

You're right that at some point we're talking about "an actual person" but when is that exactly anyway?

"Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has published a government commissioned scientific review and concluded that a fetus is not conscious at 24 weeks of age. It is also not able to feel pain.
The London based Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has published a scientific review and concluded that a fetus is not conscious at 24 weeks of age, and that from a neurological point of view it is not able to feel pain."


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293847#ixzz31TyyW64P

See? Now at 24 weeks an abortion is a late abortion and they are quite rare anyway. Its become a fetish this concern for a fetus, its as if the woman is irrelevant.

Abortion is at a 30 year low and yet there is this drive to stop access to abortion clinics? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Sorry but I read your link and how am I wrong? Abortion in Denmark, some place where I've lived for quite a few years, is not a controversial issue. People are not bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors who perform abortions and there are not people standing outside of abortion clinics picketing, screaming and praying. Its a right women take for granted like having available tampons or something. Women are not denied access to an abortion and there isn't this outcry that women are having abortions. I've known quite a few friends who have used the morning after pill as well as having gone through an abortion and its paid for by the state.

Maybe you should read this from the Copenhagen Post


A majority of Danes think it should be easier to get a late-term abortion, according to a study of 500 men and women by the University of Copenhagen. Women in Denmark are free to choose to have an abortion before 12 weeks of pregnancy. After that time, their request for an abortion has to be approved by a commission of legal, medical and psychiatric professionals. Some 60 percent of the poll respondents said that it should be acceptable to get an abortion up through the 18th week of pregnancy if the foetus has a deformity, while 24 percent think it would be okay up until the 21-week mark. A third of the respondents said that particular deformities should warrant automatic permission for an abortion, while a quarter said that any deformity should give women the automatic right to a late abortion. Since 2004, women have been offered scans of their foetus at 13 and 19 weeks, which experts say could lead parents to demand greater control over the pregnancy.

http://cphpost.dk/news/danes-support-easier-access-to-late-term-abortions.5342.html

 

[Trippy]

I definitely do NOT think that abortion should be illegal. I would suggest that some of the people (like myself) who you think are "hell bent on denying a woman's access to abortion" really aren't doing that. I think there are a lot of gray areas out there that are too quickly categorized into "black" or "white" by both sides of the abortion debate, and that's why so little actual communication takes place.

BTW I understand why people want to restrict abortion access. They feel that it really is killing a potential child, and they imagine the lengths they would go to protect their children, even their unborn children. While I disagree with their conclusions I understand their take on it; many of them are quite rational people, and do not want to "decide how other people live their lives." They really do just want to protect the unborn.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with everything you have said here.

Abortion is at a 30 year low and yet there is this drive to stop access to abortion clinics? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Sorry but I read your link and how am I wrong? Abortion is Denmark, some place where I've lived for quite a few years, is not a controversial issue. Women are not denied an abortion and there isn't this outcry that women are having abortions. I've known quite a few friends who have used the morning after pill as well as having gone through an abortion and its paid for by the state.

It's not controversial in my jurisdiction either (New Zealand) although recently there have been several attempts (splinter groups from the US) to try and make it so. Data has shown time and again that improving education among women, and giving them unimpeded access to all aspects of reproductive health management actually lowers the reported abortion rates.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

It's not controversial in my jurisdiction either (New Zealand) although recently there have been several attempts (splinter groups from the US) to try and make it so. Data has shown time and again that improving education among women, and giving them unimpeded access to all aspects of reproductive health management actually lowers the reported abortion rates.

LOL. What? US groups are going to NZ to try and do what exactly? Start a pro life movement? Are they trying to universalize the crazy or something?

 

[Trippy]

LOL. What? US groups are going to NZ to try and do what exactly? Start a pro life movement? Are they trying to universalize the crazy or something?

Something like that - one of them was bankrupted I believe, I think it got sued out of existence.

Addendum:
Abortion in New Zealand

Apparently we had an evidence based debate in the '70s and that law was the result of it.

 

[Bells]

Yeah you'd see some of them in Brisbane as well sometimes, protesting outside hospitals who offer reproductive care. They stand there with their placards trying to foist pamphlets onto people going into the hospital and they are ignored, told to piss off more often than not until someone calls the police and tells them they are hassling patients and visitors to the hospital, and they are then chased away very promptly still screaming in their loudspeakers.

 

[Trippy]

Yeah you'd see some of them in Brisbane as well sometimes, protesting outside hospitals who offer reproductive care. They stand there with their placards trying to foist pamphlets onto people going into the hospital and they are ignored, told to piss off more often than not until someone calls the police and tells them they are hassling patients and visitors to the hospital, and they are then chased away very promptly still screaming in their loudspeakers.

I have an inkling that in the city I live in there is a protest group that shows up every week on clinic day, but there's also a counter protest group. They protest opposite each other for a couple of hours then go inside and have a coffee together when the clinic is finished.

 

[Bells]

I have an inkling that in the city I live in there is a protest group that shows up every week on clinic day, but there's also a counter protest group. They protest opposite each other for a couple of hours then go inside and have a coffee together when the clinic is finished.

You can spot them from a mile away.

The ones here drag all of their little kids in tow, wearing t-shirts with aborted foetuses on them, wearing giligan style hats and usually lots and lots of zinc on their noses.

They learned to park far away and walk as when they would try to park in the hospital carpark, security and the police won't allow them to enter the hospital grounds to retrieve their cars once they have been told to shove off. It's like a walk of shame. Cars honk their horns and all you can hear is "BLOODY WANKERS" being yelled at them at lights and stuff.

They used to be quite nasty. A friend of mine was abused and spat on for having a medically necessary late term abortion. It destroyed her to be honest. But many of them have realised that hassling pregnant women and non-pregnant women alike like that won't get them anywhere.

 

[GeoffP]

Three pages, 20 posts per page since I checked up on this thread.

Not sure I feel like even trying to catch up given the day I've had.

You all right Trip?

 

[GeoffP]

They used to be quite nasty. A friend of mine was abused and spat on for having a medically necessary late term abortion. It destroyed her to be honest. But many of them have realised that hassling pregnant women and non-pregnant women alike like that won't get them anywhere.

I quite agree that more civil behaviour is required on this subject. It's emotionally charged to a ridiculous level. For example, while even discussing a modest change of perspective on abortion on this very forum, I was obliquely called a misogynist or a right-winger several times without even the slightest attempt at redress. I think someone said several times that I viewed women as expendable womb objects, for fuck's sake. It can certainly be grinding when ignorant ass-hats shriek abuse out of some stark metaphysical terror of that which they don't comprehend. The human psyche is a fragile thing, and so is the process of conception.

 

[Balerion]

Well there is a religious based movement behind pro life isn't there?

Of course. But that's not what you said.

Its become a fetish this concern for a fetus, its as if the woman is irrelevant.

Again, that's simply not the case. Even the religious wingnuts don't think the woman is irrelevant. (Well, for the most part) And describing the argument against late-term abortions as a "fetish" is a useless rhetorical device. It's a conversation ender. I suppose that's fine If you're only interested in sounding off, but If you plan on actually discussing the issue...

Abortion is at a 30 year low and yet there is this drive to stop access to abortion clinics? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Why would it? The abortion argument has been going on for decades.

Sorry but I read your link and how am I wrong? Abortion in Denmark, some place where I've lived for quite a few years, is not a controversial issue. People are not bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors who perform abortions and there are not people standing outside of abortion clinics picketing, screaming and praying. Its a right women take for granted like having available tampons or something. Women are not denied access to an abortion and there isn't this outcry that women are having abortions. I've known quite a few friends who have used the morning after pill as well as having gone through an abortion and its paid for by the state.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Late-term abortions are not legal in Denmark without medical or psychiatric approval. The issue may not be as socially contentious, but the restrictions there are greater than in the US.

 

[The Marquis]

This. The biggest cause of strife in thiw thread beyond the actual OP is the misrepresentation of the OP. When certain posters haven't been outright defending it with gems like "I can see where he's coming from," (imagine how that would fly if the subject were anything other than atheism) they've been prtending that Tiassa just wants some respect as a theist.

Tiassa just wants respect, period. Man says almost nothing and takes a page or three to do what could be done in a third of that. He relies on those who worship expression more than thought to give him legitimacy. There are so many of you who don't see that there is almost no difference between him and... say, Asguard, other than verbosity.
The articulate expression of an idea has more power than the idea itself. Always has. A magician at a magic show commands respect and awe only from those who don't know how the rabbit is produced from his sleeve. Once you know how it's done... the only thing remaining is to assess another's skill at producing the rabbit. I believe the reason I hate those like Tiassa so much is that I know the trick... but can only bow to the skill.

The battle of hearts and minds isn't being fought in Iraq. It's being fought among those who frequent places like these... and I know those of Tiassa's ilk are going to win, eventually. Because they appeal to those who look to thir own comforts more than those of anyone else, and yet pretend otherwise... even to themselves. Those who do not yet understand that the phrase "do unto others" is, when you deconstruct it completely, one of the most selfish phrases ever uttered.

The insidous irony being, of course, that atruism is selfishness personified, yet commonly perceived as something quite different.



Anyway. Bells, Cluelesshusband... I was going to get back to you, but my lord.... 20 odd pages to go through after I posted that remark about feral children? sheesh. Some other time. But both of you have some reading to do, and remember it's not about the group, it's about the individual. Children are only children, and they imitate their elders.
Feral children are those who had no elders to emulate. Read.

 

[The Marquis]

addendum, and with regard to a sub-discussion going on above... I noticed an article today about a conjoined twin being born in Australia. A baby with, effectively, one head... sort of. But with two brains.
The paretns knew the situation at about 19 weeks (I think) and yet opted to have the baby. They already had 7 children.

One has to wonder if their decision to preceed with the pregnancy had more to do with their view of themselves, rather than the wellbeing of the life they were about to bring into the world.

 

[Kittamaru]

Well there is a religious based movement behind pro life isn't there?

You're right that at some point we're talking about "an actual person" but when is that exactly anyway?

"Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has published a government commissioned scientific review and concluded that a fetus is not conscious at 24 weeks of age. It is also not able to feel pain.
The London based Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has published a scientific review and concluded that a fetus is not conscious at 24 weeks of age, and that from a neurological point of view it is not able to feel pain."


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293847#ixzz31TyyW64P

See? Now at 24 weeks an abortion is a late abortion and they are quite rare anyway. Its become a fetish this concern for a fetus, its as if the woman is irrelevant.

Abortion is at a 30 year low and yet there is this drive to stop access to abortion clinics? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Sorry but I read your link and how am I wrong? Abortion in Denmark, some place where I've lived for quite a few years, is not a controversial issue. People are not bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors who perform abortions and there are not people standing outside of abortion clinics picketing, screaming and praying. Its a right women take for granted like having available tampons or something. Women are not denied access to an abortion and there isn't this outcry that women are having abortions. I've known quite a few friends who have used the morning after pill as well as having gone through an abortion and its paid for by the state.

Maybe you should read this from the Copenhagen Post


A majority of Danes think it should be easier to get a late-term abortion, according to a study of 500 men and women by the University of Copenhagen. Women in Denmark are free to choose to have an abortion before 12 weeks of pregnancy. After that time, their request for an abortion has to be approved by a commission of legal, medical and psychiatric professionals. Some 60 percent of the poll respondents said that it should be acceptable to get an abortion up through the 18th week of pregnancy if the foetus has a deformity, while 24 percent think it would be okay up until the 21-week mark. A third of the respondents said that particular deformities should warrant automatic permission for an abortion, while a quarter said that any deformity should give women the automatic right to a late abortion. Since 2004, women have been offered scans of their foetus at 13 and 19 weeks, which experts say could lead parents to demand greater control over the pregnancy.

http://cphpost.dk/news/danes-support-easier-access-to-late-term-abortions.5342.html

This study has me somewhat confused -

Nociceptors first appear at 10 weeks of gestation in the fetus but they are not sufficient for the
experience of pain in themselves. That requires that electrical activity is conducted from the receptors into the spinal cord and to the brain. Fibres to nociceptor terminals in the spinal cord
have not been demonstrated before 19 weeks of gestation, although it is known that the fetus
withdraws from a needle and may exhibit a stress response from about 18 weeks. At this stage,
it is apparent that activity in the spinal cord, brain stem and mid-brain structures are sufficient
to generate reflex and humoral responses but not sufficient to support pain awareness. At the
same time, completion of the major neural pathways from the periphery to the cortex, at
around 24 weeks of gestation, heralds the beginning of a further neuronal maturation. The proliferation of cortical neurons and synaptic contacts begins prenatally but continues postnatally.
Magnetic imaging techniques have recorded fetal auditory and visual responses from 28 weeks
but it has not been possible to record directly when cortical neurons first begin to respond to
tissue damaging inputs, although there is evidence of neural activity in primary sensory cortex in premature infants (around 24 weeks). It has been suggested that subcortical regions can
organise responses to noxious stimuli and provide for the pain experience complete within itself but there is no evidence (or rationale) that the subcortical and transient brain regions
support mature function.
Thus, although the cortex can process sensory input from 24 weeks, it does not mean that the
fetus is aware of pain. There is sound evidence for claiming the cortex is necessary for pain experience but this is not to say that it is sufficient. Similarly, the interpretation of ultrasound
images is problematic. It is important that ‘labelling’ a set of movements, such as ‘yawning’,
with a functional or emotional purpose that is not possible does not imply such a purpose.

So... they determine that the necessary pathways are there, the pain receptors are there, and the impulses do reach the brain... they then go on to say:

Indeed, in the previous
report, it was recommended that the use of analgesia be considered where the fetus was over
24 weeks of gestational age. However, this more recent review has concluded that the evidence
that the fetus can and does experience pain is less compelling and accordingly the benefit of
administering analgesia is less evident, while the risks and practicalities of so doing remain. So
on the basis of ‘first do no harm’, prior to the procedures described in this report, analgesia is
no longer considered necessary, from the perspective of fetal pain or awareness. H

and previously they stated

Current research shows that the sensory structures are not developed or
specialised enough to respond to pain in a fetus of less than 24 weeks. Even after 24 weeks it
is difficult to say that the fetus experiences pain, because this, like all other experiences, develops postnatally along with memory and other learned behaviours. Moreover, the
environment of the womb is usually protective with the fetus floating in the warm amniotic
fluid.

It sounds like they are saying that the fetus could experience pain, but then turning around and saying there is not enough evidence to make a decision either way. I am curious... we know that the fetus can respond to touch and other stimuli, and it seems they are trying to determine if this is purely reflexive action or not... yet previously in the same report:

In medical abortions, the fetus will usually die during the process and before delivery. Current
research shows that the sensory structures are not developed or specialised enough to experience pain in a fetus of less than 24 weeks

So... they are still worried about the fetus possibly feeling pain after 24 weeks.
It just seems they are very uncertain about this.

They also state this higher up

Although the rationale
is to ensure fetal death at delivery, some parents may find it reassuring that the fetus will not
experience any noxious stimuli during labour

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Judging the life quality of a person is a difficult matter.
A person with Downs Syndrome, for example, may be more content with life than you or I.
Although such a person may have limitations, they can also give a great deal to others.
In the future, it may be possible to take a sample of the amniotic fluid, and diagnose probable schizophrenia by the age of 20,
or a heart attack by the age of 50.
Should these foetuses be aborted?