Talk:Prenatal perception

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Y.Ma100, P. Lee UCSF, Rmondal, UCSF, C. Lin, Future UCSF Pharm.D..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased?

Since I last checked the article has changed and seems more pro life biased as opposed to and objective display of cases of fetal pain or lact of it. I think this article should have a lock, because this is a serious scientific issue and needs people to write objective facts rather than twist evidence for one point of view. Tichina a fan (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article is biased for leftists because it tries to say, without proof, that prenatal fetuses definitely cannot feel pain when it's murdered in cold blood by the abortionist. (See I couldn't say that on the article cause it's tots POV.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.155.39 (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New entry

Cannot this be made into a proper entry and be linked to from the Abortion entry?

WikiSceptic 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been done. Brisvegas 12:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep: This article is valid. Some people are just so narrow minded that they will try to get rid of anything that contridicts their Idiotology regardless of it's merit. Chooserr

• comment: as long as I have you here, please stop creating vandal templates for your own personal use, thank you--Aolanonawanabe 04:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not merge

This issue is too weighty to be merged into another article - it deserves some space of its own. Brisvegas 11:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's a nice discussion, now I think I'll put the merge tags back--Aolanonawanabe 12:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a "political epithet" - it's a controversial issue which cannot be summed up in two/three sentences. Brisvegas 12:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not an 'issue' at all, it's an article prtending to have medical content--Aolanonawanabe 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of our personal opinions, this article deserves to be on its own and not be swallowed up by a list. Brisvegas 12:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Reality isn't an opinion, and certianly not a personal one, this article should be swallowed up by a list, and quickly too, before somebody reads it and gets then impression that it has some sort of encylopdic value, it's a political buzzword, it should go to a list of political buzzwords--Aolanonawanabe 12:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, let's compromise - we'll add the term to the list but retain this article as a separate reference. If you feel it is little more than a buzzword, feel free to put this in the introduction - but in a NPOV way of course. The info about the research into this topic/buzzword/etc. deserves an article, and would be far too big to fit into the list. This article was expanded after advice from editors of the main Abortion article, when they felt that this section was getting too long. Brisvegas 12:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Stop putting the merge tag on. The very fact of you suggesting a merge to List of political epithets shows that you do not know what "epithet" means. You are being decidedly POV here as well. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk

So why is it POV, and why do you as one person feel the need to force your opinions upon others...No one else has made comments on this version being POV. So why not wait for others to reach a census? Chooserr 05:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

changes to first section

Giving an overview of the developmental issues involved here is useful. But I don't believe it is appropriate to paint the academic/medical side of this debate as pro-life versus pro-choice. I have removed statements like Academics who hold "pro-choice" points of view often estimate that a fetus can only feel pain during the third trimester... and acedemics who hold a pro-life point of view argue that the fetus is capable of feeling pain as early as 7 weeks... because they imply that those academics are letting their politics drive their research findings. Also, I removed unsupported statements like Most pro-life advocates believe... and Most pro-choice advocates believe... Advocates on both sides have a wide range of beliefs, so I think these statements are greatly oversimplified. If anyone has support for these findings, please cite it. FreplySpang (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just found that part of this was a copyvio from [1], so I am going to reword. Copying whole sentences and paragraphs from other websites with only minor changes is not acceptable at Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you quote what part was a copyright violation for I wrote the first paragraph on my own and thought it looked damn fine, and shouldn't have been changed. Chooserr 01:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There, I changed it. The copyright violation wasn't by you, Chooserr, it was added by Brisvegas in this edit: [2]. From "Pain in an adult, child, newborn or late-term fetus..." to "... i.e. sometime after about 26 weeks into pregnancy." was lifted (with tiny changes) from [3]. I also changed your paragraph because it had a lot of redundancy with the following paragraphs. And it certainly did not look "damn fine" with its spelling and grammar errors. Also, after reading the given reference [4], I re-added a bit about the relationship between belief and research. FreplySpang (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Source disputed

Note that there is currently a dispute over whether religioustolerance.org is an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and its talk page. (There's also a dispute over the dispute, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org !) The dispute started as part of the larger dispute over BC/AD vs. BCE/CE.

Personally, I think that the religioustolerance.org piece provided a useful starting point for this article. It would be great if interested people could expand the article to use multiple sources, but I understand it takes time. FreplySpang (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speaking of disputes over sources, he's now trying to add a shock-site with bady photoshoped pictures of fetuses, the virgin mary, and jesus, [5], as a 'source'--Aolanonawanabe 01:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So called "Shock link"

That is pure and simple a miss representation of the facts that diagram clearly pertains to the subject matter of this article and shows what would cause the fetus to feel pain. Should we censor a diagram that pertains to the subject matter just because one user doesn't like it? I find the picture of an erection on the Penis page more offensive, and no one dares remove it because it "illustrates" what is happening. Chooserr 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The photograph of an erection probably does not belong on the top-tier penis article. An illustration would be better, with photos at the main erection article, but I'll leave it to the regulars in the male anatomy articles to establish their own conventions. Here, the precedent is zero tolerance for sites containing shock pictures on the abortion-related articles. This image itself does not even pertain to the subject of fetal pain. It is a diagram of D&X, and, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs over there -- stretching it to fit is POV. -Kyd 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the diagram comes from a reputable source that gives illustrations to all sorts of things including the cardiovascular system, the reproductive system, and the nervous system. It also makes medical awareness posters so I think you'd be misplaced in calling it a shock site. Chooserr 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I feel that the image is relevant to the entire point which this article attempts to make. If it is 'shocking', so what? Quite frankly, this seems more like a difference of opinion between people rather than about the image in question. I have viewed hundreds of images made in the style of the one in question. As Chooserr pointed out, the places where one can view such images are most commonly found in medical practice offices. Heck, anyone who has been to a Body Worlds exhibit has seen more than enough human tissue to last a dozen lifetimes (sadly, I missed that traveling exhibit). How is the image in question any more shocking than the images we have in the articles for Body Worlds [6], penis [7], vagina [8], or even ectopic pregnancy [9]? Should we remove this image from the Body Worlds article here simply because it *might* be perceived as 'shocking'?

The answer, of course, is no. Censorship, in principle, is not the Wikipedia way. We edit and censor out material that is not relevant or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the image in question quite adequately provides a visual representation of what this article is describing. Whether fetal pain *exists* or not is not our place to question here, as there is evidence for and against it, and we are writing an encyclopædia, which *describes* rather than *prescribes* knowledge.

I challenge anyone concerned about this matter to adequately demonstrate that this image is any more shocking than hundreds more images on Wikipedia which show the parts of a human body, sliced or otherwise, as I cannot imagine any reason why the image should not be linked here.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what else I have to say. KillerChihuahua and I said our bits a month ago. It's not so much about content as it is about context, and, in this case the image is more argumentative than informative. In keeping with NPOV, this sort of thing should be avoided. We created the "no shock links" guideline on the main abortion article as a way to thin out the external links section and seal a loophole to potential POV violations. The standard applies both ways, and, as such, the link to Women on Waves was removed. Such contents and links would be better suited to more specific articles. -Kyd 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a shock site

Sorry I miss typed it in the rush to fix the unjust revert Chooserr 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't give a flip who put it there, it has no bearing on fetal pain whatsover. It isn't to a medical study on the developent of the nervous system, or anything else relevent. There is no reason to have it in an article titled "Fetal pain" because it isn't about fetal pain. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with fetal pain, and you did ask who put it there - don't ask if you don't want to know. Chooserr 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I answered this on both our talk pages, but here it is again:

Oh sheesh, my apologies. It was a rhetorical question... I didn't realize you were answering my question, because it was rhetorical, if that makes *any* sense. Thanks for the info, apologies again for not making sense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See your talk page, Chooserr, for a longer explanation of my conduct as an editor. Thanks. -Kyd 02:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New study

There was a new study released on this topic [10]. Here are some points:

Summary points

• The neuroanatomical system for pain can be considered complete by

26 weeks’ gestation

• A developed neuroanatomical system is necessary but not sufficient

for pain experience

• Pain experience requires development of the brain but also requires

development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity of pain

• Development of the mind occurs outside the womb through the

actions of the infant and mutual adjustment with primary caregivers

• The absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the morality of

abortion but does argue against legal and clinical efforts to prevent

such pain during an abortion

--Andrew c 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Research

I saw in your second paragraph you stated, "Some academics argue that it appears as early as seven weeks after conception". But I was wondering, in your research have you founds anyone who believed that the fetus feels pain even before seven weeks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beamboi2000 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 May 2006.

debate, controversy, all that

forgive me- I do grammatical deconstruction when I get this close to disinfo. it's a coping mechanism.

it's the subject of debate as a part of the controversy. 

ok, so less than 50 articles link here, so it's not super important, but all articles about contorversies are such bad places to get information. so is that what we settle for on 'pedia for controversial topics? we just accept the truth that the truth on these pages is gonn be fuzzy? I dunno. it's tough territory. I feel sorry for admins who end up having to sort this kind of stuff out.

while I'm sure there are non-abortion-related reasons (anti or pro) to understand fetal pain, there are few reasons money would find it's way to funding such research besides abortion-interest-money reasons. I find it weird that pro-choice persons would really go down this road cuz, eh. If this gets debated, I think prolifers win, slightly.

also- it mighta been prominent, relavant news but there's ad hominem stuff in here. (4th paragraph under fetal pain#Medical opinions) that should be removed unless there's a (gulp) source. CrackityKzz 05:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

andrew c- "manual of style says the name of the article should be bold and the start of the opening sentence" I understand the sentence up to the word "bold". what does the rest of the sentence intend to say exactly? u'v got a hanging participle or something. CrackityKzz 16:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that wasn't clear, here is the relevent link Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles. The edit that I reverted moved the title out of the subject of the opening sentence into a subordinate clause. Does that make sense? Forgive me for not being clearer in the edit summary.--Andrew c 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

excellent. chances are if you use "subordinate clause"- gotcha. thanks. CrackityKzz 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pain and suffering

I am going to edit the article to include links to the main articles on pain and suffering. This is very appropriate. It is useful for readers to know that pain and suffering can be distinct, and to understand what each term means. These are not links to articles on "postanatal pain" and "postnatal suffering". These are links to "pain" and "suffering".

Generally speaking, I do not think it would be useful to search out and erase everything in this fetal pain article that might also have some relation to postnatal life.Ferrylodge 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that generally speaking, we shouldn't search out and erase everything that isn't related to the fetus. However, I take issues with these two sentences "Generally speaking, pain may occur without being triggered by injury.[4] Moreover, there are types of suffering distinct from pain.[5]" The citations have nothing to do with the fetus. In this context, I believe these two sentences are original research, so let me explain a little further by summarizing the connotation I get from reading these sections. We talk about how various scientific studies conclude it is impossible for fetuses to feel pain before ~26 weeks because not all of the bits and pieces are in place. We counter that by saying, in essence, pain and suffering is very complex. A full grown adult my be able to "experience" pain without and physical stimulus, and again there is the vauge notion of "suffering" which a fetus may undergo, so saying a fetus doesn't have all the bits and pieces to feel pain is misleading because a fetus could still "suffer" or experience some sort of pain without stimulus. By mentioning two studies unrelated to fetal pain in association with studies related to fetal pain, we are in essence rebutting those studies by saying pain and suffering are mysterious so we don't really know what a fetus can experience. While this may be a valid concern, I'd seems like original research to synthesize the sources together in this manner in this context. I'd feel much more comfortable if we could get an actual citation of a medical source saying these things in regards to a fetus. Understand where I am coming from?-Andrew c 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., are you opposed to linking the pain article and/or the suffering article in this article? Additionally, I did not see anything in the cited portions of references [4] and [5] that limited the discussion to "adults". Have you noticed something there that I didn't? Where did it say that the discussion did not apply equally to infants?Ferrylodge 02:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved content

Generally speaking, pain may occur without being triggered by injury. Moreover, there are types of suffering distinct from pain.

---

I removed the above because IMO it is not germane to this article. The first ref is to Supportive Care in Radiotherapy, the second to Surgical Management of Pain, the statement overall adds no understanding of fetal pain at all SFAICT. The second sentence especially is discussing suffering which is not pain - how is this relevant to an article about pain? KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have conformed the article to the edits by Vassyana at the fetus page. Moreover, there is a distinction between "pain" and "suffering" of which many readers may be unaware, and so it's worthwhile to let them know. As for the reference that KillerChihuahua objects to, would it be better to confine the discussion to one talk page? Should this be the one, KillerChihuahua, or would the fetus discussion page be more appropriate? Thanks.Ferrylodge 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already removed the "and suffering" added by Vassyana at fetus, and requested in my edit summary that Vassyana join us here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is not suffering a concept closely related to pain? Is there not a distinction between the two? Would it not be useful for readers to understand (or at least be aware of) the distinction? Would two additional words in this article really be so harmful?Ferrylodge 05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for Vassyana.Ferrylodge 06:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, you recently asserted that I am "burning bridges left and right". Are you able to evaluate this question about pain and suffering neutrally, given that you think the bridge between us has been burned?Ferrylodge 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are begging the question. I have never asserted that I think any bridge between us has been burned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, this isn't the place for this. I know we all have a history of conflict between us, but lets not bring out personal stuff here (save that for user talk). Content discussion only please.-Andrew c 16:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. Do you consider yourself to be among the people with whom you say I am "burning bridges left and right", and --- if so --- are you able to evaluate this question about pain and suffering neutrally?Ferrylodge 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the experienced editors here will be able to ignore your attempt to poison the well against me, and judge my edits and comments without bias. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you think I'm trying to poison any well against you. I tried to ask you a question as gently as possible, and in good faith. I note that you have not answered it.Ferrylodge 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I was invited to come to this talk page. I will explain my edit and some of my take on this. I made the change I did in a sourced and neutral statement. I agree it is proper to link the first instance of the word. I feel the above removed comments should not be on the page; a bit too editorial. Also, there is a strong debate about fetal pain itself. We should avoid making speculative associations between postnatal and prenatal pain. I removed statements based on those sources at Fetus. However, suffering is mentioned in the source. Please see my comments on the Talk:Fetus page, as they explain more of my reasoning.

"The ability of a fetus to feel pain is often part of the abortion debate."

This is specific sentance I support the addition of "and suffering" to, based on the reference used to justify to the statement. Beginning the sentance with "The debate over the ability..." would help present a more NPOV. It is true that both are part of the debate, so it would be a neutral statement. Or at least that is my opinion. You're welcome to some salt. ;o) Vassyana 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As Vassyana gives as a reason for inclusion of suffering that the word is used by the source: The source used is ReligiousTolerance.org, which has always been a source of contention regarding whether it can be considered a reliable source. That its used several times in the article concerns me slightly, and I think we should probably make an effort to re-source the content referenced by that essay (it is so described on the RT site) at some point. The essay itself uses CARE, a self-described 'mainstream Christian charity' for a source for that statement, which is attributed to an inquiry into "fetal sentience" conducted by the House of Lords in Britain in 2000. I cannot find the article ReligiousTolerance used as a source on the CARE site. However, as it is a study conducted by the House of Lords, a little digging will hopefully turn up a source on the study itself. I will post here if and when I locate a source, please if anyone else finds a source before I do note it here. I would like to see the phrase in context. All that said, that a 2000 study about fetal sentience used the word is not, IMO, a strong argument for inclusion of the word in this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: the study was called the "Rawlinson Report" according to one site, for anyone else who is trying to find it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I found a source... but its from a letter (not article) in the 25 Jan 25 1997 edition of the BMJ "Do fetuses feel pain? Can fetal suffering be excluded beyond reasonable doubt?" written by the doctor who supported some pro-life parliamentarians. He argues that because the data is incomplete, one can not know if fetal suffering can be excluded beyond a resonable doubt. He uses the phrase "fetal suffering" in the title and a few times in his letter. It is basically an opinion piece. So I think that shows that fetal suffering is part of the abortion debate (which is what the sentence was trying to say, no?). However, I do not know how notable this view is.-Andrew c 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I ws actually hoping to find the original report; all the mentions which give a source give the CARE site. So far as I can tell, the word is used as synonymous with pain, so I see no reason to include it and potentially muddy the waters. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a a 1997 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report, Fetal Awareness. -Severa (!!!) 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we are: Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience. It's been taken off the 'Christian Action Research & Education (C.A.R.E) web site so I had to dig it up off Archive.org. -Severa (!!!) 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some additional material showing the discussion of fetal suffering:

Hope that helps. Vassyana 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping there might be some response to the previous helpful comment. Is the additional material provided by Vassyana considered adequate to support the edit? Absent any further response, I'll revert the reversion, on the assumption that the additional material is considered helpful and adequate.

Additionally, it is very straightforward to do a search in order to see that fetal pain and suffering are part of the abortion debate. If all of this material is not adequate, then please describe what kind of material is necessary.

Also see R. Frank White, M.D., "Are We Overlooking Fetal Pain and Suffering During Abortion?", American Society of Anesthesiologists Newsletter (October 2001).

Also see Barry David and Barth Howard Goldberg, "Recovering Damages for Fetal Pain and Suffering", Illinois Bar Journal (December 2002).

There are thousands of instances where fetal suffering is mentioned on the internet, and thousands of instances where fetal pain is mentioned on the internet. IMHO, this article on fetal pain ought link to the general Wikipedia articles on "pain" and "suffering", so that people will understand the difference. We're only talking about the insertion of two words here, one of which is a wikilink (i.e. "and suffering").Ferrylodge 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think inclusion of the word "suffering" in relation to the abortion debate is pretty straight forward (as my own personal research, and yours and Vass's also showed). This article is sharping up. However, I'm a little concerned why "many" was changed to "some" in your otherwise neutral edit.-Andrew c 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I switched "many" to "some." The reference for that claim was religioustelerance.org, which in turn cited a JAMA article that is among the references for our fetal pain article. The JAMA article is (as I recall) somewhat controversial, due in part to involvement of some of its authors in pro-choice or abortion services. I'll try to address your concern, Andrew C., by reworking that sentence. Also, I have a link to the full JAMA article, instead of just a link to an abstract, and I'll install the better link.Ferrylodge 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed it up some more. See what you think. One additional point that I think the article should address (at least briefly) is the point a lot of pro-life groups make: just because killing someone may not cause pain doesn't mean that doing so is okay. I'll see if there's some way to work in that issue in a neutral way.Ferrylodge 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that point should be raised in another article. I have no problem with this article mentioning the relevance of fetal pain to the Abortion Debate, but this is not the place to carry out any part of that debate. SheffieldSteel 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If some ethicists believe that the issue of fetal pain is unimportant or morally irrelevant, I don't see why that opposing view cannot be mentioned here. Why not wait and see what I come up with?Ferrylodge 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[reset] Have you read the conclusion of the BMJ 2006 article? They say as much. Perhaps reading their phrasing could give you some ideas what could be done here.-Andrew c 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that many people believe that the entire question of whether a fetus feels pain is unimportant and morally irrelevant. They say that even if a fetus does not feel pain, that has no bearing on anything, because killing is wrong regardless of whether the victim suffers or not. If we're going to have a long article about fetal pain --- giving the impression that the answer to this question is important --- we ought to mention that it may not even be important (according to some ethicists).Ferrylodge 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the morality of abortion but does argue against legal and clinical efforts to prevent such pain during an abortion and An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal.-Andrew c 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

British Medical Journal article

The quotation taken from the article doesn't conclude that pain is dependent upon cognitive and emotional developments (in which case many animals would also be unable to feel pain, by the way, which is proposterous), it concluded that were it so, unborn babies would then be unable to feel pain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.128.3 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 March 2007.

Please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). Alternatively, you could hit the "Signature" button at the top of the edit window. You can see from everyone else on the talk page that we all are doing it. It helps everyone keep track of who is saying what. You can also read at the top of each talk page edit window This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks for your consideration. As for the BMJ article, they conclude: The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed. and 1)The neuroanatomical system for pain can be considered complete by 26 weeks' gestation 2)A developed neuroanatomical system is necessary but not sufficient for pain experience 3)Pain experience requires development of the brain but also requires development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity of pain 4)Development of the mind occurs outside the womb through the actions of the infant and mutual adjustment with primary caregivers Their claims are pretty concrete. Your changes specifically soften them for no reason. I ask you to read the whole article and not one pull quote, and decide if your changes were necessary. For the time being I am reverting.-Andrew c 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A "mindful experience of pain" is what adults call suffering. I don't want to get into that discussion, because it looks like it's been covered on the talk page already, but that's the fundamental problem with the BMJ conclusions. Their criteria could be applied to someone with late-stage Alzheimer's, or serious developmental problems, and reach the conclusion that it was fine to do major surgery without any painkillers because the patient couldn't "understand" the pain. I don't think any humane person would have suggested that my great-grandmother, even after she was unable to walk, talk, or feed herself, was not deserving of basic comfort care, like painkillers, just because we believed she couldn't have a "mindful experience" of anything. Surgeons used to make this claim about newborns, too, and certain Nazis "researchers" made similar assertions about seriously disabled people. We reject all of those claims now. The BMJ "criteria" were widely disparaged at the time of publication because of that inappropriate focus on mindfulness.

Here's what I think would be appropriate for the article: The BMJ folks assert "...it is broadly accepted that psychological processes have content concerning people, objects, and symbols, which lay in the first instance outside the brain." However, outside the brain and outside the womb are importantly different, and it's unbelievably sloppy of them to have conflated those two ideas. For example, we have a good deal of non-controversial research which demonstrates that a third-trimester fetus is able to respond to individual voices and a few specific words before birth, which means that we have a good deal of research which shows the fetal brain is able to process stimuli in a conscious (although limited) manner. This fact knocks the BMJ criteria flat.

I think that might be an appropriate point to make about that article, especially since this criticism got a fair bit of attention at the time. I could probably construct this from journal articles, but that's not the Wikipedia way. Would anyone else like to take this on? It would be best to find someone making this point in a newspaper article, instead of going back to the journal articles WhatamIdoing 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think journal articles are much more reliable sources than popular media such as newspapers when it comes to science related subjects. Feel free to dig through the journals and added sourced information to this article.-Andrew c 14:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I could give you a couple of articles on neonates recognizing their mothers' voices. I could cite standard works that assert fetal learning and periods of wakefulness. I could doubtless turn up formal standards that say that people with serious cognitive disabilities still get painkillers even if they are believed to be incapable of "understanding" their pain. But synthesizing those unrelated sources into a criticism of the BMJ article seems to me to be a violation of the synthesis clause of WP:OR. We need to find a reliable source that connects the dots for us. I didn't mean to reject scientific journals as sources, but the source must connect all the dots for us. (I assumed that the average Wikipedian would have an easier time finding media sources.) WhatamIdoing 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not what is easiest for the average Wikipedian to find, the issue is which is more reliable. And medical journals are more reliable as sources than popular media, including newspapers. What you "could give" us about neonates recognizing voices is immaterial to this discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit explination

There has been a lot of activity on this article with little discussion. We may need to take a bit slower than that, here are my changes:

I addressed the wordiness in the sentence in the first paragraph concerning the BMJ's study and abortion debate.

I moved the fetal pain law sentence up next to the sentence about the abortion debate.

I removed the sentence "Pain is only one aspect of suffering, and suffering is only one aspect of human emotion." because it is unsourced and POV pushing. It's commentary there for the only purpose of saying "this is a very complex issue and therefore the focus on fetal pain is only a small part of the picture. I believe this concept is adequately addressed elsewhere with citation. I added a fact tag tot he lethal injection analogy. Who makes this comparison? I quick google search didn't find anything relevent, seems like OR.

I restored the longstanding 2nd paragraph. The citation says: "Many physicians and researchers of fetal development believe... 'fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.'" then "Some mental and medical professionals suggest that a fetus cannot feel pain, no matter how far developed." and finally "Others, mostly pro-life advocates, believe that a fetus as early as 7 weeks after conception can feel pain". They make it clear that the majority view, and what the minoritiy views are, and I feel that a) we accurately represent that source with the way we word the 2nd paragraph, and that our source is accurately summarizing the source material.

We were confusing two different studies in UK, one from the RCOG and one from MRC. I added a section for the latter. I also restored my sentence which cites the actual paper's findings for the latter. I removed the fox news quote because it is no longer necessary.-Andrew c 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Abortion paragraph

The paragraph: Some scientists suggest that a lack of fetal pain "does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal". As one scientist has put it, "many in the community would recognise that the obligation not to harm other human subjects extends considerably beyond that of not causing pain."

Does this even belong in this article? We mention that Fetal pain is a factor in the Abortion debate. Details on that should be in that article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The previous paragraph (i.e. the first paragraph of the article) mentions abortion multiple times. The paragraph in question mentions it once more, and I think it's fine.

Andrew c recommended the Derbyshire quote, and I added the McCullach quote. I think they're both very important for putting the whole subject in context.

Derbyshire, by the way, thinks that pain can only be sensed after the third trimester (i.e. postnatally), whereas McCullagh thinks it may be possible in the early second or even in the first trimester. So, these two doctors are coming at this issue with diametrically opposite medical views, but they still agree on this point described in the paragraph at issue.Ferrylodge 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither sentence actually has any content about Fetal pain. The first talks about whether Abortion is morally acceptable, the second about whether pain is even the issue. The entire paragraph is citing scientists position on non scientific issues, a case of false authority. We are all aware that pain is not the only issue, moral questions are raised, and so on - all of which belongs in the Abortion debate article not this one, which the misleading "Some scientists suggest..." which is completely irrelevant to the questions being raised. Of course they have opinions, they are people as ell as scientists - but this is not a scientific issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

These scientists both emphasized these points in articles they wrote about the science of fetal pain. They did so, because they did not want readers to misunderstand the subject, and did not want readers to draw unwarranted conclusions. The first paragraph of this article currently mentions abortion repeatedly, plus there is a huge sidebar about abortion. If these two very relevant sentences are removed, then many readers will draw the conclusion that the morality or legality of abortion are widely believed to hinge on the issue of fetal pain.

Here we have scientists from completely different sides of the fetal pain issue going out of their way to make sure that they and their arguments are not misunderstood or misused. To delete that would only promote misunderstanding and misuse.

I agree that an extended discussion of the legal and moral issues associated with fetal pain would be more appropriate in another article. But here we only have two sentences that merely give the reader the slightest glimpse of those related issues. I would really appreciate if we could leave these sentences in. I agree with Andrew C that the Derbyshire quote is relevant and appropriate, and the McCullagh quote is too.Ferrylodge 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not find the quotes relevant and appropriate to this article; further the paragraph is giving undue weight to the moral views of scientists. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the paragraph in an effort to meet your objections. It now says: "A lack of fetal pain does not necessarily 'resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal'.[4] Still unresolved would be whether 'the obligation not to harm other human subjects extends considerably beyond that of not causing pain.'[5]" These are not moral views, but rather statements of fact, and merely point out that pain is not the only issue. This is as straightforward as the opening sentence of the article: "Fetal pain is a subject of intense political and academic debate." If the paragraph in question is deleted, many people will think that pain is the only issue, or will attribute such a view to the scientists quoted in the article. Those scientists did not want that to happen; the paragraph in question cites one pro-choice scientist who thinks that a fetus cannot feel pain until after it is born, and one pro-life scientist who thinks that a fetus can feel pain before ten weeks. And despite this vast chasm of disagreement, they both acknowledge the fact that determining whether there's fetal pain does not resolve the matter. This is a very important paragraph to keep, and that's why I've tried to rephrase it. The footnotes now make clear that both of these people are not just scientists, but also people with political opinions. I don't think it would be possible to find any reputable source who has disagreed with the paragraph in question.Ferrylodge 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Recent Reversion by Andrew C

Andrew c, you recently made this reversion. You offered no explanation for the reversion at all, despite Wikipedia policy that reversions should be explained. Your edit summary said this: "restoring longstanding paragraph. don't revert things if you aren't going to respond on talk." When have I ever reverted something without responding on talk? Instead of making false accusations/insinuations, I think you yourself ought to try a little harder to be a good Wikipedian.

Look in the mirror to see who is unresponsive. I have already explained to you at the fetus discussion page: "There is no footnote to support the rest of the sentence: 'sometime during the pregnancy usually after 26 weeks gestation....'" You did not respond at all. Nada.

Please, andrew c, why does everything have to be a battle with you? Why do you violate Wikipedia policies, and pretend that I am somehow the one who will not "respond on talk"?

The sentence that I have repeatedly objected to is this: "Most scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain sometime during the pregnancy, usually after 26 weeks gestation although the question of exactly when pain might be possible is disputed." You have no footnote here, and so your sentence is uncited. Contrary to what you say, this sentence is not "longstanding" in this article; it was added by an anonymous user on 21 December 2006.

The idea that most scientists "usually" believe that pain is only possible after 26 weeks is not only unsupported by any footnote, but is also demonstrably false. I have quoted Arthur Caplan in the article: "there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable. Some put the point at 28 weeks. Others say 26 or 24 and still others younger still."

Apparently, you are putting the burden on me to prove that your uncited statement is false, which seems like a very odd way to operate. In any event, I will now insert the following info into the article: "a Daily Telegraph straw poll found many neurologists were concerned that foetuses could feel pain in the womb before 24 weeks after conception." Derbyshire, David, Foetuses 'may be conscious long before abortion limit', Telegraph (UK) 2003-09-03.Ferrylodge 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The section immediately preceding the previous section dealt with "my reversion", so I'm not sure why a new section has been started. You are a bully and you make things personal that shouldn't and I just cannot get along with you. I'm sorry. You win.-Andrew c 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC). Ferrylodge 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, this editing process is not about winning or losing. It is about being accurate and neutral. If you discover that I have made any error, I would be glad to fix it.Ferrylodge 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that despite differences of opinion, I have always found Andrew c to be a reasonable and thoughtful editor who strives towards fairness and accuracy. He listens, speaks calmly, and really makes an effort towards consensus. I don't agree with some of his opinions but despite that I have found him to be a good neighbor. That's all. Joie de Vivre 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Totallydisputed

The intro to this article is slanted towards the pro-life POV:

"A lack of fetal pain does not necessarily "resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal". Still unresolved would be whether "the obligation not to harm other human subjects extends considerably beyond that of not causing pain."

wtf. Joie de Vivre 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Joie, I believe you are being too hasty here. The sentences you quote are fully footnoted. As indicated in the footnotes, the first quote is from someone who "has served as an unpaid consultant to Planned Parenthood of Virginia and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, as well as the U.K.-based Pro-Choice Forum." The idea that this is pro-life POV is just not correct (incidentally, this quote was suggested by Andrew C). Additionally, the tag you placed on the article is also inappropriate because you did not identify "more than five dubious statements". Nor is "wtf" very civil.Ferrylodge 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, LTNS. Please remember what I requested about capitalization and my username. Thanks. Onto Joie's concern. I agree that the totally disputed tag was unnecessary (misused). I believe the information contained in the first sentence is very important tot his article, though I'm not too keen on all the quoting (paraphrasing is generally more encyclopedic, especially in the LEAD). Just because a fetus hypothetically doesn't feel pain before week X, doesn't mean abortions before week X are moral. It seems pretty straight forward, and perhaps self evident, but it is something of interest to note here. As for the second sentence, the structure is a bit poor and the question is fairly vague/speculative. I do not see what concept it furthers that necessitates being in the LEAD. I would support removing the sentence for the lead, and perhaps, if otehrs feel strongly about including it, rewording it a bit and finding another place for it. -Andrew c 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Just because a fetus hypothetically doesn't feel pain before week X, doesn't mean abortions before week X are moral." But not everyone believes that abortions are immoral. This is a POV statement because it hinges on the idea of the morality of abortion, which some people don't think to be a moral issue at all. If we're going to include this statement, we should state who said it and in what context. Joie de Vivre 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Joie, we do state who said it and in what context, in the footnote. The person who said it is pro-choice. Why would he make a pro-life statement? The second quote (from the pro-life guy), is basically saying the same thing, and that's why I thought it would be useful to include both (i.e. to illustrate that this is a point of agreement).

Maybe it might also be useful to add a further sentence pointing out that, even if a fetus does feel a great deal of pain, then that does not necessarily resolve whether abortion is moral or should be legal. After all, many pro-choicers believe that abortion should be legal throughout nine months even though they acknowledge the fetus is fully human and sentient; they say that the mother's choice should outweigh the pain felt by the fetus.

But regardless of whether we include such an additional sentence, that does not affect whether the existing language is POV. It isn't. The existing language in no way implies that "presence of pain would make abortion immoral or illegal." By analogy, the absence of rain doesn't resolve whether we're having a nice day, nor does that obvious fact imply that the presence of rain resolves whether we're having a nice day. I have no objection to paraphrasing what's in the lede, as Andrew c suggested, although this may be the unusual case where paraphrasing may lead to more controversy (and so it may be better to stick with direct quotes).Ferrylodge 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If it is paraphrased, the direct quotes should at least be put in the footnotes. But again, paraphrasing may just give us more trouble, so I'm not sure it's worth it. The main point is that Joie is criticizing a pro-choice guy for making an allegedly pro-life statement. This makes no sense. Even if the guy were pro-life, the quote simply does not imply that fetal pain makes abortion immoral.Ferrylodge 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The link to the quote is dead. Joie de Vivre 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The dead link has now been replaced.Ferrylodge 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the NPOV tag on the article is due to concern that a quoted statement may have a pro-life slant. I have replaced a dead link in the footnote that shows the statement was actually made by a pro-choice activist. If there are no comments about the footnoted article, I'll assume that the dispute has now been resolved.Ferrylodge 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The word "context" comes to mind. It's not resolved. I can't talk about this at this time but it's not resolved. Joie de Vivre 23:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Joie, it's not fair to tag an article as an NPOV problem and then walk away. You tagged it five days ago because you said that a quoted statement had a pro-life slant. I pointed out that the statement was made by a pro-choice activist, and pointed you to the source of the quote. I don't see any indication that you've looked at that source, nor have you suggested any rephrasing of the material in the article.

I am going to remove the NPOV tag, and would recommend that you engage in discussion before putting the tag back on this article. I note that, in the past five days, you have had lots of time to address this. You have made an enormous amount of edits since April 5.Ferrylodge 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, do you support the NPOV tag? If so, I could reinsert it. However, my understanding was that you had other concerns (e.g. that it would be better to paraphrase instead of quote in a lead).Ferrylodge 16:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am not completely clear what the POV issue is with this article that Joie was bringing up. I think the 2nd sentence about unresolvable harm to human subjects is redundent and the article could benefit from its removal (not a POV concern though). Perhaps we could combine both sentences and keep both sources as a ref, but quote neither one. I personally would have waited a few more days to give Joie a chance to respond. One tag, even if we aren't sure what it is about, isn't going to hurt the article for a few more days. The editor did show interest in discussin on talk, and we clearly have not addressed those concerns completely in Joie's eyes (thus waiting until everyone is satisfied seems best). I see no need to stalk other users and become impatient. We should all be patient. Surely there is a good enough personal reason why we are being made to wait. I'll leave a note to Joie that we are becoming a bit impatient on talk, but I do not think we need to do anything hasty yet (it's been less than a week). -Andrew c 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, if Joie would like to put the tag back on, and engage in discussion, then that's okay by me. I just think we should try our best to avoid a "drive-by tagging" situation.

As far as your assertion that I have "stalked" Joie, I really wish you would try not to exaggerate. All I did was take a brief look at her contribution page. I did not engage in any harassment or abuse, and did not even visit any of the dozens of articles that she has extensively edited since placing the tag at this fetal pain article.Ferrylodge 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Thank you, Andrew c, for reminding me to put in my opinion at this discussion. Frankly, I don't have the energy for this this week. The tag is gone for now, I will have to come back to this later. Joie de Vivre 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Breaking Up First Section

The first section is pretty long, and contains a whole lot of direct quotations. Rather than paraphrase, I think a simpler solution would simply be to insert a section break after the first paragraph, and insert a new section header: "Background". Ferrylodge 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RCOG

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is not a pro-choice group in the sense that we would list it in the external link section of the pro-choice article. The citation says that the organization "recognises that abortion is an essential part of women's healthcare services". No where in the citation does it claim that the RCOG is a pro-choice group. Doing a search for the term "pro-choice" on their official website yields zero hits. The most defining aspects of the RCOG is not it's political stance on abortion, and it almost seems non-sequitur to mention it in regards to their study on fetal pain (and it's original research to claim that they are a pro-choice group when that is not part of their self identification, nor stated by any other cited source). Additionally, I also do not think it is appropriate to go through every citation and qualify whether it is a pro-choice or pro-life study (if we do it with one study, what is stopping us from doing it with the rest?). This biases the reader in a way that doesn't seem neutral. -Andrew c 05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be raising more than one issue here, so I'll just confine myself to the first issue, for the time being. You say that "No where in the citation does it claim that the RCOG is a pro-choice group." You are correct that the citation does not use the word "pro-choice", but that should not be necessary to determine if RCOG is pro-choice. Are you really going to argue that it is necessary to find the word "pro-choice" in a search of their official website?

Can we please try to be reasonable here? Pro-choice describes a view that a woman should have access to safe and legal abortion. That is RCOG's view.Ferrylodge 12:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RCOG was founded in 1929, and eventually received a royal charter in 1947. A Royal Charter is merely a way of incorporating a body, by turning it into a single legal entity. Amendments to the Charter and by-laws require government approval, but the governing documents for RCOG impose no specific restrictions on its operation.

Just over half of RCOG's 11,000 members live outside Britain, spread in 83 countries. RCOG is dedicated to "improving sexual and reproductive healthcare worldwide." According to its web site, RCOG "recognises that abortion is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential."

It is very clear that RCOG is a pro-choice organization, rather than pro-life or neutral.Ferrylodge 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a source, that is OR. Have you a source? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources are provided at Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.Ferrylodge 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A source which supports your assertion that RCOG is pro-choice? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not edit this article to say that RCOG is "pro-choice." Someone else made that edit, and I have not taken a stance one way or the other as to whether it is desirable for this article to say what RCOG's position is with regard to abortion rights. You and Andrew c placed a "citation needed" tag on the edit, so I thought I would help out by finding a citation. In my opinion, the material cited at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists article amply shows that RCOG is a pro-choice organization.

Do you agree with Andrew c that an organization is required to describe itself be described using the word "pro-choice" in order for Wikipedia to conclude that the organization is "pro-choice"? As described above, this does not seem like a sensible requirement, because there are many ways of saying the same thing, without using the word "pro-choice".Ferrylodge 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just a matter of self-identity. We don't have any source (yet) that states that RCOG is a "pro-choice group". This is why I said, in my first post above nor stated by any other cited source. Therefore, you are misrepresenting my view by saying that I required nothing short of self-identity in order for us to include this information. But since you bring it up, maybe we can bypass this source mess by all agreeing that the label "pro-choice" isn't appropriate here from the get go.-Andrew c 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand, Andrew c. Why is a synonym of "pro-choice" insufficient for you? It seems like you are requiring magic words here. If RCOG describes itself (or instead a third source describes RCOG) using language synonymous to "pro-choice", why is that not equivalent to using the verbatim term pro-choice?Ferrylodge 20:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, do you have a source? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I provided an answer to your question above. "In my opinion, the material cited at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists article amply shows that RCOG is a pro-choice organization." You have not responded to that.

And, would you please answer my question? "Do you agree with Andrew c that an organization is required to be described using the word 'pro-choice' in order for Wikipedia to conclude that the organization is 'pro-choice'?"

Perhaps if you would acknowledge the answer I gave to your question, and would reply to my question, then we could make some progress here. I would be delighted to find a source that meets whatever requirement you may have, but I need to know what your requirements are.Ferrylodge 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The info at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists article includes the following. The governing documents for RCOG impose no specific restrictions on its operation.[11] RCOG is dedicated to "improving sexual and reproductive healthcare worldwide."[12] According to its web site, RCOG "recognises that abortion is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential."[13] How is this info inadequate to establish that RCOG is a pro-choice organization?Ferrylodge 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out above that it is false to say that I believe self-identity is the only method of verification acceptable for wikipedia. Please stop attributing claims to me that I did not make. Our requirements for verifiability are the same as WP:V. We cannot verify the claim that RCOG is a "pro-choice group" because we have no sources that state this claim. All we have is "Ferrylodge believes that official statement X on RCOG's website is synonymous with some unknown definition of 'pro-choice group'". While it may seem silly to you that we are requiring a citation for this claim, you have to understand that wikipedia works on verifiability. If we are the only source in the entire world that makes the claim that the RCOG is a "pro-choice group", then we are publishing something for the first time, hence it is original research. But like I said above, all this sourcing and verifiability talk is moot if we can come to an agreement that this information shouldn't be included in the article in the first place. I'd be happy to move on and strike the comment. In fact, I'd rather turn the discussion from basic wikipedia policies to why we need to mention "pro-choice group" in the first place. -Andrew c 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, please don't put words in my mouth. I do not claim that you "believe self-identity is the only method of verification." What you have claimed is that someone, whether it be RCOG or some other source, must use the words "pro-choice" to describe RCOG. Isn't this what you have said? You wrote above: "No where in the citation does it claim that the RCOG is a pro-choice group." So, if I find a citation from RCOG or from somewhere else that says RCOG adamantly supports unlimited abortion rights, then you say it's inadequate for our purposes because it fails to use the magic words "pro-choice." Isn't that your position? That has absolutely nothing to do with self-identity.Ferrylodge 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

it has to do with sourcing, and hence, NOR. Can we be done now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just inserted additional sourcing in a new footnote to the article, and I'll reformat the footnote if the sourcing is acceptable. In the edit summary, I say: "These citations do not use the words 'pro-choice' verbatim. Is synonymous language acceptable?"

I hope that KillerChihuahua and Andrew c will address why synonymous language is or is not acceptable to them. I have asked over and over again in this thread, without answers.

The new footnote says: "RCOG is dedicated to 'improving sexual and reproductive healthcare worldwide', and 'recognises that abortion is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.' In England, RCOG is 'opposed to a reduction in the time limits for abortion.'"Ferrylodge 22:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you have problems when you think people are ignoring your questions, which is why you often repeat yourself. I have highlighted (by bolding) the part of my most recent post which I feel addresses your concern regarding synonymity.-Andrew c 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make them specifically pro-choice, but it does rule out pro-life, rather definitively. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The way you have it phrased, they are a "pro-choice group" - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group. They are a college, which may be described as sympathetic to the pro-choice position, or similar phrasing, but their focus is on women's health. Do you see the difference? Describing them as a "pro-chjoice group" is simply misleading, makes them sound like they are an activist group, or that is their mission statement, or something. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objection if the article says RCOG is an organization having a pro-choice position. That way it doesn't sound like being pro-choice is their primary mission. It's very clear they have a pro-choice position, right? (But note that Bill Clinton is pro-choice even though that's not his primary activity in life.) Does anyone object to saying that RCOG has a pro-choice position?Ferrylodge 23:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, I don't see how this helps the article, how it effects the RCOG survey on fetal pain, how this fact is notable. I've been trying to discuss this matter and move past the sourcing issues. This sets a precedent that we should somehow polarize our sources and add the political views (pro-choice, pro-life) of all of our cited sources. The article should not turn into that, in my opinion. The abortion debate should not eclipse the scientific literature. I understand that there is some overlap. Can anyone explain to me why exactly this information is relevant to the section of the article where it is currently placed? Can someone make a case for why to include it at all?-Andrew c 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A Canadian journal article states: "Researcher bias clearly can affect the research process. Nowhere is this more obvious than in research on abortion." That's why it's relevant that RCOG opposes rolling back Britain's pro-choice abortion laws.

I would agree that there are other situations where the pro-choice views of an author are even more relevant than here. For example, (as GTBacchus once put it) in "cases where a researcher's potential bias has itself been discussed in reliable sources, then it's entirely appropriate for us to mention it, because that's a citable fact about reactions to their research." But even where the pro-choice views of a researcher haven't been explicitly discussed in connection with the research, it's still very relevant.Ferrylodge 23:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, the same goes for pro-life researchers.  :-)Ferrylodge 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. It's fairly standard practice at reputable journals to disclose these sorts of potential conflicts of interest. For example, the editor of JAMA stated publicly that her journal seeks to do so. I do not see it as problematic at all if Wikipedia would do so. That goes double if we're already citing a source that mentions the pro-life or pro-choice background of a researcher.Ferrylodge 00:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Labelling an organisation "pro-choice" would be dependent upon a definitive, clear expression of pro-choice sentiment. "Abortion is an essential part of women's healthcare" reads as a statement of medical opinion, not a statement of principle, because the RCOG remains silent on the matter of whether abortion should be considered a right or something which can be freely chosen. In some cases (for example, ectopic pregnancy), an abortion is medically advisable and/or necessary, and this is the "essentiality" to which I interpret the RCOG statement as refering. If RCOG had stated, "Mastectomy is an essential part of women's healthcare," this statement would evidently refer to the treatment of breast cancer, not a political conviction. -Severa (!!!) 16:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In England, RCOG is "opposed to a reduction in the time limits for abortion." See Abortion Rights web site, "Government robustly rejects minority push for abortion law review" (2006-07-04). Also see "MPs prepare for abortion fight", Sunday Telegraph (2007-05-07). If that's not a pro-choice position, then I don't know what is.Ferrylodge 16:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please respond before making further reversions to other articles. Thank you.Ferrylodge 17:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to slip the disputed description into another article when there is no consensus to support its inclusion in this one. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Severa, please try to assume good faith, and try to refrain from making inflammatory accusations. I have not tried to “slip” anything anywhere. If you would please read what is at this discussion page, you will see that KillerChihuahua wrote that "It may even establish their position as pro-choice." Obviously, Killerchihuahua suggested that language in the first place.

Moreover, it is inappropriate for you to be making these accusations here at this discussion page. As Killerchihua recently said in another context, that is "completely irrelevant to this article."

The talk page at Royal_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynaecologists is the place to continue this conversation if you like. That is the place for you to explain your reverts. You have not written anything at that talk page, and you still have not explained anywhere why you believe that opposing reduction in the time limits for abortion is not a pro-choice position.Ferrylodge 20:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead needs to start with a simple defintion of what "fetal pain" means.

This article should start with a simple definition of what “fetal pain” refers to before it launches into its political significance. The article is also too abortion centric as Fetal pain is not only an abortion related issue but is also implicated in pre-natal health care.LCP 20:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with "Medical Studies" section

Older Studies

The following study does not discuss fetal pain. Including it in this article is editorializing:

In 1980, Stanislav Reinis and Jerome Goldman wrote that, "The first detectable brain activity in response to noxious stimuli occurs in the thalamus between the ninth and tenth weeks."

I also propose removing studies in the 1980's as they are out of date.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an adequate justification for deleting information. Data doesn't have an "expiration date" like a jug of milk does. I don't mean to defend their inclusion -- I don't know anything about either the studies or what POV, if any, we might be "accidentally" pushing by "neutrally" deleting older studies based on their publication dates -- but the fact that they were published in the 1980s seems entirely irrelevant to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, older studies hold less weight than newer studies in the scientific community (new ones replace old ones). With that said, perhaps we should list the newer studies first, and the older studies under them?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversing the order would be preferable to deletion, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, older studies hold less weight than newer studies -- but only because the newer studies are generally better studies, not because older studies are automatically deprecated. (After all, there's no point in conducting a study which you know will be worse than what's already published.) The only time that the dates actually matter is when you're doing epidemiology work, because then you'd rather know how many people have a disease now, instead of how many people had it decades ago.

I think that the studies should be evaluated individually on their own merits.

Looking at other comments and recent edits, I also think that IronAngelAlice needs to be particularly careful about POV issues in this article, which means fundamentally that any review method transparently hold all the studies to the same standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentary, WAID. Yes, I agree that older studies hold less weight than newer studies because new studies are generally better, and not simply because older studies are automatically deprecated. What struck me about the list of studies in the older version of this article was that they were often taken out of context in order to push a pro-life POV. Also, many of the items listed as "medical opinions" were quotes from doctors in legislative or parliamentary hearings - they were not studies. I thought it would be best to differentiate these things, so I created a section for "studies" and one for Parliamentary and Congressional hearings.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

New Studies

This study does not refer to fetuses at all (it concerns newborns):

Also in 2006, a study in the Journal of Neuroscience stated: "We conclude that noxious information is transmitted to the preterm infant cortex from 25 weeks, highlighting the potential for both higher-level pain processing and pain-induced plasticity in the human brain from a very early age."

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem citations

These citations come from pro-life websites - I propose they be removed or replaced:

White, Robert. Testimony to U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution (1995-06-15). Quoted in http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBABA%20HR%20760%20HJC%20report.pdf this congressional report. Retrieved 2007-03-10. (link does not work)

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/life/abortion/fetalpainmenu.html Canadian Physicians for Life. Retrieved 2007-03-10

Glover, Vivette and Fisk, Nicholas. " http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/BJOGfetalpain1999.pdf Fetal Pain: Implications for Research and Practice —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because a report or study was REPRINTED in a pro-life journal or was QUOTED in a pro-life journal does not mean that the study itself was done by pro-lifers. IronAngelAlice, you are deleting everything from this article that pro-life people believes supports their cause, which is plainly a mistake. Please reconsider. Pro-life websites often quote the Declaration of Independence, but that does not imply that the Declaration of Independence is a biased, POV, pro-life document.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This link doesn't work: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBABA%20HR%20760%20HJC%20report.pdf And, there are broader questions: simply because a comment is made in a legislative hearing does not mean that the comment is based in science. It is important that we look at peer reviewed articles, not just POV comments. Let's focus on the science first and foremost.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I added the section "Abortion Debate," where all the quotes from pro-life doctors about fetal pain have been made during parliamentary and congressional hearings. We should also probably include quotes given from pro-choice sources as well. I delineated this section from the "Medical studies and reviews," section.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Pain asymbolia

I ran across a tiny stub today, pain asymbolia, that made me think of this article. The fundamental political disagreement about fetal pain is not whether a fetus reacts to getting stuck with a needle, but whether that reaction is morally significant. That is, does sticking a fetus with a needle induce suffering, or does it just trigger a meaningless reflex, like blinking your eyes when something gets too close? It seemed to me that if we better understood pain asymbolia, it might help resolve some of these questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem of pain

This article contains no definition of pain, and as such it is a fertile ground for the debates that are promulgating on the talk page. A definition of pain is essential here, since it will help to clarify what should be included in the article. It should also be emphasised that even if a neurological chemical exchange is a necessary condition for pain (which it may not be), the sufficient condition for pain (or pain itself) is the state of BEING IN pain. Any definition of pain that does not incorporate the notion of subjectivity and experience is redundant. Since science cannot access lived experience (subjectivity), it cannot form the sole data repository for this article. (Note that this is not intended as an endorsement of the proposal that a foetus can be in a state of pain). What I have written is not original research, but it does partake of the philosophy that this article sorely needs. A philosophical starting-point will air all of the issues the various debaters have on the matter, as well as providing a more accurate article. It would also explain why this article is "within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy". At present, it contains some science and no philosophy. I am happy to help if people see fit, or to be ignored.211.29.8.227 (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. A mouse can sure seem like it is in pain, we talk about it as such, but maybe that's just anthropomorphism. If there isn't consciousness, isn't pain-like behavior just a reflex? Life.temp (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I think it would be best to keep this article focussed, rather than delving into the general nature of pain. We already wikilink to general articles about pain and suffering. However, it might be worthwhile to insert some brief general material immediately after the "Medical studies and reviews" heading. How about this:

“ Generally speaking, “questions about the nature of pain, pain perception and the mechanism of pain have been ongoing for years”, and sometimes beliefs that were widely shared have turned out to be incorrect.[1] Conditions like congenital insensitivity to pain illustrate “the bizarre and still-elusive nature of pain.”[1] ”

[1] “Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception”, About Kids Health, The Hospital for Sick Children (2006-05-18), via Archive.org.

Something like this would give readers a glimpse of broader issues, without getting bogged down in the definition or subjectivity of pain. Also, two of the references that are already in the article contain an interesting point that might help put the issue of fetal pain in better perspective (the following quotes were in this article for several months but then were removed without discussion). Stuart Derbyshire has written that, "An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal." Likewise, Peter McCullagh has written that, "In a more general context, the point can be made that many in the community would recognise that the obligation not to harm other human subjects extends considerably beyond that of not causing pain."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and demonstrate what I'm talking about by editing the article. Let me know what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I'm slow in understanding what you mean by keeping the article focussed, or avoiding getting bogged down by definitions and subjectivity. The position I took was that the article was not focussed because it did not deal with the experiential state of pain as grasped by some philosophy, and in this regard there is no mystery to pain at all, since I like everyone else know pain as a state I am IN - everything else is an explanation after the fact (which of course can be useful if there is a way of stopping the pain). But pain itself is a state of being. This is focussed on the very heart of the matter, and it does not bog anything down. Just because scientists say that debates on pain go round and round does not mean that philosophers or cultural anthropologists or other intellectuals think it goes round and round. Consider the following from the Wikipedia "Pain" entry:

“ Pain is defined by medical researchers as a subjective conscious experience. The presence or absence of pain even in another human is only verifiable by their report; "Pain is whatever the experiencing person says it is, and exists whenever he says it does.[2] Currently, it is not scientifically possible to prove whether an animal is in pain or not, however it can be inferred through physical and behavioral reactions. ”

The first sentence places "fetal pain" in precisely the arena I think it should be in - ie, a philosophical question. The second sentence makes "fetal pain" a near impossibility. The first perhaps likewise depending on the position, and the last also. So, unless pain is given a more philosophical focus, I think this article is in danger of being superfluous. Even the "medical researchers" rule out the possibility of "fetal pain" in the main article by way of the main explanation of what pain is. On what basis does this article then rest? But at the same time, I look forward to the changes you will make, and I acknowledge your careful and generous response in this talk page. It is a pleasure.

Life.temp, you are correct. 211.29.8.176 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, we need to distinguish non-painful reflex behavior and pain-like reflex behavior in non-conscious beings. If the difference isn't that one involves pain, then what is the difference? Life.temp (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Several of the studies that are already cited in this Wikipedia article contain definitions of pain. You might want to make a list of them first, before consulting additional sources. I did not notice that any of the cited sources require a report from the person experiencing pain. I can be in lots of pain without reporting it to anyone, so I do not think that "reporting" aspect is part of the mainstream definition of pain.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If something is subjective it must be reported for it to be known AS something BEYOND an individual's experience. In any case, studies of pain, from neurology through psychology, utilize questionnaires and variations on pain scales, so these studies gather their data from REPORTS. Pain is NOT neurochemistry. Pain is EXPERIENCE. Everything beyond the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE of pain (and there is NO OTHER KIND) is inference, and that includes the inference of all observers, loved ones, passers-by, or whomever. Given these truths, the truth that pain is SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE and scientific and medical research on pain must begin or end with REPORTAGE, we will likely never know if a foetus can experience pain. In the case of "fetal pain" everything may well always be inference, however, if there should be such an article as this, it must deal squarely with the broader philosophical issues. There is no need to make lists - look at the main article on pain from which my quote above comes. Pain is regarded by the Wikipedia entry as a "subjective conscious experience." Yes, you can be in pain without anyone knowing, and I can infer that YOU can be in pain without trouble because I infer that you like me are a being with a continual stream of subjective experience. Surely the point of the "Fetal pain" article is to explore precisely this issue, viz., can a foetus EXPERIENCE pain? Should the "Fetal pain" article contradict the main article on pain with its introductory emphasis on subjectivity? Or should it rather explore, through the appropriate references, the broader philosophical issues - especially subjectivity - that go to make up the import of this article? No amount of data on the development on the nervous system or the movement of the foetus in the womb, or ridiculous, inflammatory, unscientific and unsupported statements such as

“ The ability to feel pain and respond to it is clearly not a phenomenon that develops de novo at birth ”

and - [the foetus]

“ is fully capable of experiencing pain...Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure. ”

can make up for the fact that pain is a subjective experience, and as such, I think this article's main thrust should be on precisely this.

Again, given the standard definition of pain - and the one used in the intro to the main article on "Pain" in Wikipedia - we can answer the question as to whether a foetus experiences pain if we can know whether a foetus is capable of "subjective conscious experience" - here of course is the true link to the abortion debate. If the answer is "no", for instance, then pain cannot be experienced by a foetus, because a foetus is incapable of subjective experience, and is therefore not "alive" like human subjects. Alternatively, perhaps the standard definition of pain as experience is flawed, in which case the outcome may be different. As I have tried to explain several times now, pain may involve various things, but it MUST be a subjective experience because pain is BY DEFINITION a subjective experience. This is where a broader, philosophical approach is needed. This approach would make it an encyclopaedic entry. 211.29.39.30 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All of your comments here seem to apply equally to infants who cannot yet speak. Therefore, I do not see the paricular relevance to fetuses. Also, note that some human beings are definitely capable of "subjective conscious experience," but are incapable of feeling pain. See congenital insensitivity to pain.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"All of your comments here seem to apply equally to infants who cannot yet speak." - where do you think that the academic articles dealing with pain come from? From people who cannot speak? No. From (a) reportage, that then after the fact explores human physiology and chemistry, and (b) from what the researcher assumes would be "painful" and working back from neurochemical research, he/she establishes or reconfirms a model of pain. And both tend to involve a heavy dose of behaviourism (which for some poor fools is also considered reportage). And the summation of this is how we would know that some individuals "cannot feel pain". Your example merely confounds your own point, viz. those insensitive to pain REPORT no feelings (as others would understand them) of pain. Why have the "fetal pain" article, then, since we have no data from a foetus? What's the difference, in your terms, between having the article and not having it? Do you see a difference? Is it the debate (which is scantly accounted for)? Is it interesting developments in genetics or neurochemistry? What in the end is the merit of a "fetal pain" article? If pain is a subjective experience, how do you know an entity is in pain without reportage (surely this is how those who "don't" experience pain are identified, or do you know of another, magical and secret way of identification?)? One answer for you, given what articles on pain must examine, is that foetal pain is either an impossibility or can never be known. How does that sit with you? Why does the article even exist? Is it because of a couple of key-note speeches by theologically-inclined medical doctors? The ONLY thing controversial - or even noteworthy - about "fetal pain" is whether a foetus is capable of subjective experience, and your comments imply - as does this article - an inability to understand what subjectivity is. I have made an attempt to contribute to and strengthen this article not by editing it, but by engaging in discussion with those - like yourself - who are heavily involved with it. What you have written may seem logical and sensible to you, but I think you are not at all in the ballpark. You need to come to terms with what "subjectivity" means, and you will not get this from science, since science avowedly does not deal with subjectivity and, indeed, it is the very - the essential - thing that science leaves out of an inquiry. Do this, through philosophy, and then come back to the article afresh. Do not try to come off as condescending and glib when it is clear that you are not sensible as to what you are writing about. You do not understand the definition of pain; you do not understand subjectivity, and; you do not understand the academic literature dealing with pain as a human experience. Find out, and then debate. I hope this article benefits.211.29.39.30 (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't think that this article should be converted into a lengthy philosophical discussion of the nature of pain. Everyone knows that pain is a subjective experience, and we provide a link to the main pain article. All experiences are somewhat subjective, and some philosophers believe that nothing is real in this world except one's own subjective experience --- but there's no need to extensively delve into that here in this article.

Just because a fetus cannot feel pain does not prove or disprove whether the fetus is capable of subjective experience, and that concept is already indicated in the lead paragraphs of the present article, which mention that adults may have congenital insensitivity to pain. Do you agree that this is very important info to convey to the reader?

As far as "reportage" is concerned, people report things in many different ways; not all of them use language, and not all of them are intentional. A pig reports pain by squirming. An infant conveys pain by screaming. One of the challenges of fetal pain research is to distinguish between reflexes on the one hand and reportage on the other hand.

If you have a reliable source that discusses "reportage" in the context of fetal pain, then we can discuss it. But we cannot insert stuff into this article that is not reliably sourced to cited references discussing fetal pain.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Abortion debate intro

Let's talk about writing an intro to the "abortion debate" section. I felt that the first paragraph that FL came up with had nothing to do with the abortion debate, and so I moved it to the lead. KC has blanked FL's second paragraph stating that paragraph was off topic. I disagree to an extent. But we really need to state why the issue of fetal pain is part of the abortion debate. I've come up with this so far:

In the broader abortion debate, the issue of fetal pain has been used by pro-life organizations as a means "to restrict or ban abortion".[1] Legislation has been proposed to introduce controversial information related to fetal pain and fetal anesthesia to government-mandated informed consent material for women seeking abortion.

[1]Paul, Annie Murphy. "The First Ache," The New York times. February 10, 2008. Accessed April 14, 2008.</ref>

I think we could also use a significant part of FL's second paragraph, and state that the fetal pain issue clearly isn't the end all issue of the abortion debate, because even if it could clearly be proved that fetuses never, ever feel or experience pain, there would still be abortion opponents. I'm not sure we need both quotes. The Derbyshire quote basically sums it up. What else could we include to introduce the section on fetal pain? What do others think of my proposed paragraph?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew c, I think there are some typos in your proposed paragraph that make it hard to understand (e.g. "restrict of ban" and "legislature has been proposed"). Also, the term "government mandated abortion informed consent material" seems cumbersome, and at least could use some hyphens.

Regarding the Derbyshire and McCullagh quotes, if only one of them is presented in the text of this Wikipedia article then I think the other should be in the footnotes, e.g. because one of them is a pro-choice activist (Derbyshire) and one of them is a pro-life activist (McCullagh). Also, the Derbyshire quote assumes there is no such thing as fetal pain, which is one reason why McCullagh's seems preferable for our text (i.e. McCullagh's quote does not assert there is no such thing as fetal pain). Another advantage of the McCullagh quote is that it is a statement not just about his own personal view but rather what he thinks "many in the community" would say. Anyway, whichever quote is used (I recall that you found and recommended the Derybshire quote while I found the McCullagh quote), the other quote ought to go in the footnotes, I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) KC, would you care to explain why you think the stuff you removed was off-topic? Would you mind if we reinsert some of it, as Andrew c suggested?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

US fetal pain laws

One more thing, about my recent edit to the US section regarding recent legislature, I think we need a sentence saying why pro-lifers support such laws. I briefly searched on NRLC's site, but couldn't find a good, concise blurb. I'll keep searching, but it may be a bit. If someone else know of a good source to add a bit more balance to that paragraph, it'd be great. Something like "Pro-life organizations generally support these laws because...." -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources and quotes I've gathered so far:

• "In this environment of competing understandings, the constitutive effects of fetal pain legislation may be profound. The issue of fetal pain has particular salience because of the individualized nature of pain experiences. Because pain is experienced internally as a subjective experience, legal recognition of fetal pain distinct from maternal pain implies legal recognition of the fetus as a subject distinct from the mother... Awakened empathy is a powerful social force, and the legal recognition of fetal pain has consequences. Fetal pain legislation may have a significant effect on the way in which our society deals with abortion and other social problems, for "in the long run, the way in which we name things and imagine them may be decisive for the way we feel and act with respect to them, and for the kind of people we ourselves become." n104 Such legislation may be desirable for precisely this reason." ["The science, law, and politics of fetal pain legislation." Harv Law Rev. 2002 May;115(7):2010-33. PMID: 12013054 ]

• "In the end, legislators must confront whether women are entitled to know of the growing body of medical literature establishing that the human fetus is capable of experiencing pain after the first trimester of pregnancy. It is not a sufficient answer to "assume" that women know, nor should legislators assume that abortion providers will voluntarily inform women of this research. Women have a right to know the probable consequences of their choices. Many want to know the effect of the abortion on the fetus. n140 It is the worst sort of paternalism that suggests that because women may be discomforted by this information, and may even make different choices about continuing their pregnancy, that they should not be informed that they can prevent unnecessary pain to the fetus. Legislation requiring that women be informed of their ability to foreclose the possibility of fetal pain facilitates informed choices by women, and may reduce to some small degree the suffering associated with abortion." [Collett TS. "Fetal pain legislation: is it viable?" Pepperdine Law Rev. 2003 Jan;30(2):161-84. PMID: 15237508 ]

Neither of these sources could be used to cite the notion of pro-life organizations' support. Instead, we'd need the sentence to say something like "Supporters of these laws have said..." In fact, the Harvard Law Review paper says Many pro-lifers are likely to view the FPPA or similar legislation as a potentially dangerous compromise with an unjustified abortion jurisprudence, premised on "the sense that the pain inflicted by the abortion is of secondary importance to the intolerable taking of life." ... The fear of the pro-lifer is that recognition of fetal suffering will result in an ethic premised on the notion that abortion is permissible as long as it is as painless as possible. But then again, that shouldn't undermine that the NRLC and other pro-life orgaizations do discuss fetal pain in detail on their websites, and do support such laws.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is current legislation on fetal pain, so there's probably no need to bring up legislation from 2005. See here for the current bill. Also, the external links provide opinion about this legislation.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So should we delete the info from 1995 and 1984? State laws that I am aware of have passed as recently as November 2007, and the Feb 2008 NYT's article states that the federal act has been introduced in every congress since 2005.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that it's odd to focus on federal legislation from 2005 that failed, while not mentioning current federal legislation. If you take a look at the link I provided, you'll also see that there was failed legsilation before 2005 (i.e. in the 108th Congress). Why should the 109th Congress be mentioned, but not the 108th or 110th?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully my last edit has addressed your concerns. I was going by page 5 of the Times Magazine article. I saw the title of the bill and googled it and the 3rd hit was the official page for the 2005 bill. I wasn't paying close enough attention to notice 2004 was the first year it was introduced. I apologize, and thank you for noticing it (though the exact nature of your concerns were not clear to me by your first posts). Hopefully all is good now in regards to the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Maybe we could add a sentence about how it has been introduced every year since?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. It also might be worthwhile to wikilink Informed_consent#Abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

I just reverted a huge change to the article, and just wanted to bring it here to explain. First of all, I didn't see any consensus that the article needed such a drastic change, and secondly, though some of the changes were sourced, it looked like some POV was being introduced. The second sentence, for example, was changed from

"Much argument-territory here has been staked out since the US Supreme Court's landmark decision, Roe v. Wade in (1973)."

to

"The emotional impact of the possibility that pain might be felt by a fetus during a second or third trimester abortion is powerful, even for those who support the US Supreme Court's landmark decision, Roe v. Wade in (1973)"

This particular change was not sourced. I think the first sentence is kind of awkward ("argument-territory has been staked"?), but the change obviously wasn't just to address sentence structure.

I also think that, generelly, on potentially controversial articles, one really shouldn't make such massive changes without looking for some consensus in advance on the talk page. Thoughts anyone? Dawn Bard (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DB, while I believe you are acting in good faith, yes, people may make massive edits to even very controversial articles. Have a look at the Be bold article. No consensus is required to make changes, even large changes. Of course, make your own bold edits! Remember that reverts should only be a last resort. If someone puts up an unsourced claim, use a {[cn]} (use only the squiggly brackets) tag for the entry and give them a chance to source it. If they don't after a couple days, then take it down. If someone removes something you like, cut and paste it back in from a previous version rather than hitting the "undo" button and changing all of their edits.

Also, it's important to be careful not to look like one is owning an article. Look at this example from the ownership page: "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes." (sound familiar ;)?). These kind of reasons shouldn't be used when making a revert. People can (and should!) edit as much as they like and, unless a page is protected, no consensus is necessary. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I understand that people may make massive changes to controversial articles - I made one in undoing this editor's changes - be bold goes both ways. As I said, I didn't just undo the change because it was a massive change to the article, I did it because reliably sourced information was deleted without explanation in a way that skewed the point of view of the article, and because some of the new language was potentially POV. As you no doubt know, maintaining a neutral point of view is critical.

I'm familiar with WP:OWN, and I don't have any sense that I own this (or any) article, but neither does anyone else, including the editor that I reverted. I also made the effort to bring it to the talk page because I have seen the bold, revert, discuss cycle work very well in other controversial articles. If I shouldn't have said that generally such massive changes shouldn't be done without advance consensus, then I apologize for that, but in a week since I undid the edits, nobody has come forward to dispute the content of my edit (not even you, I can't help but notice ;).) I stand by my decision to revert to a neutral version of the page, however - maybe I just should have been more clear that that was why I did it. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. In the first post, Dawn Bard raised some specific concerns. Instead of trying to lecture each other, or one-up each other in terms of wikipedia guidelines, why not talk about the actual issues raised with the edit. Yeah, sometimes it sucks if you make a change and get reverted. But the only way to really get your changes perminent, is for a compromise or consensus to be hashed out here on the talk page. Hopefully, we can discuss content, and not editors, from this point out. Interpersonal problems should be handled on user talk pages, or the various noticeboards. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the original edits. I was just responding to DB's request for thoughts. As for the BRD, I don't think this situation met any of the standard cases for use and I don't think the diplomacy condition was met. BRD is a solution to "Problem: Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made", and I don't think we were at that stage yet. It should not be a first step or opening salvo in dealing with a new editor; ROWN and BRD are compatible, because BRD should be used very sparingly, and I don't think this edit qualified. I'm not surprised the person didn't come back rather than discuss. He or she obviously put some time into the changes and was completely reverted in three minutes. Assuming the person wasn't a sock puppet, he or she was a newcomer and got bitten pretty hard. I wouldn't come back either. A complete revert of that magnitude in minutes usually (not here) indicates a pretty devoted sphinx (in this case, I imagine the timing was a co-incidence). It's usually either start a war or move on, so I move on as do most people (and newcomers just leave forever). As for "be bold", it doesn't work both ways. It's only for updating pages, not reverting pages.

As for the revert itself, no I don't agree. It seems there is a lot of secondary material on both sides of this debate and wikipedia isn't the Cochrane Review. RanalliPJ had obviously done his or her homework, and was citing secondary material directly citing the original sources, plus things like New England Journal of Medicine and the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. A lot of work went into that update, but I seriously doubt we'll see it followed up now. It's a shame, really. I'm not really a follower of this article (I actually just found it today), but I imagine some sort of integration might have been possible. I do agree with you about the PoV tone of the edit, but that's the main reason I think a re-edit rather than a revert would have been perfect in this case. Tone is really easy to fix.

And Andrew, I know you're just trying to help, but I think DB and I are having a worthwhile discussion. Thanks, though.(Smallvillefanatic (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

It wasn't just the tone that was POV - RanalliPJ was deleting medical information sourced by the Journal of the American Medical Association, and replacing them with sources from the National Right to Life Committee website. That is not uncontroversial. And Andrew is right, this page is not for discussing general guidelines, it is for specifically discussing this article. As I noted, nobody came forward in a week since I made my edits to disagree with the changes I made. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look over it, and most of the information from JAMA is still there. I think the specific methodology of the testing was removed, but otherwise, the rest of it was just moved around. The rest is easily restored without a revert. In terms of the additions, RPJ didn't just add from the pro-life website, but from New England Journal of Medicine and a few other appropriate sources, stuff that I didn't know and all of which was deleted during the revert. RPJ is almost certainly not coming back, so it's just gone unless someone who knows this topic restores the good bits of it.

As for the appropriateness of our discussion, I'm a little confused, since DB explicitly asked for thoughts on whether a controversial article like this needed consensus before a major change. I was only answering the question asked and my answer was as appropriate as the question. Discussing guidelines versus discussing specific articles is a false dilemma; there's nothing wrong with discussing the application of policies to a specific article or change, which is (mostly - 62.8%?) what we were doing.

Anyway, RPJ's gone now, so it's all moot (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)).

No Content Under Neonatal Pain

One of the most significant aspects of neonatal perception this page is supposed to address is that of theories relating to, and researched performed on, neonatal pain, especially with regard to abortion and the perception, or lack thereof, of pain by the fetus at various stages of pregnancy. Although the header exists, there is no text under it, significantly undermining the validity of the article. I request any expert in this area to fill up the fore mentioned space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.8.60 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit: With regards to the above, it appears that there is indeed content pertaining to neonatal pain; the problem lies in improper headers.

Implications section?

I was expecting a wider discussion in this article about the implications of neonatal perception. While abortion is certainly one area where there are heavily debated implications (both the legality of abortion and also procedures for it e.g. anaesthesia of the foetus), I was also expecting other implications to be covered e.g. the debate on wider legal rights pre-birth, associated implications for the rights of pregnant women etc. Can someone who is editing the page look into this? I don't have any specific content to cite, but I do think the article could be improved by widening it's focus a little to look beyond abortion... 008cait (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

relevant news item: "Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7853321/Foetus-cannot-feel-pain-before-24-weeks.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Did this fetus feel some pain?

File:Ruptured ectopic pregnancy.jpg|thumb

This is from an ectopic pregnancy -- not an abortion -- but a naturally occurring defect, like the ones that kill one third of all fetuses conceived. There's a good chance that any pregnancy will terminate in something like this, so a caring parent will abort the fetus before that twelve weeks or twenty six weeks or whenever it is they can feel pain. And millions of fetuses are poisoned and killed every year by toxic waste, lets do something about that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.97.34 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see absolutely no reason for having that picture on this talk page. Please tell me if this is not 'the done thing' on Wikipedia, but for the moment I have removed the double square brackets that identified it as a picture. The (anonymous) poster can return them if they wish, but I have no idea why it is on this talk page and would appreciate an explanation. It appears to have no purpose other than to shock/tittilate. (I am not sure why this section of talk even exists in relation to this article on prenatal perception.) Ambiguosity (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The McCullagh Quote

The link to Peter McCullagh's foetal sentience article points to a page in the wayback machine saying the file cannot be found. After much searching, I found a copy. This is not a research paper, but a submission to the British Parliament. It does not summarize McCullagh's own research, nor does it summarize his review of the available evidence. In fact, I see no evidence that McCullagh has a degree or any research training in any relevant area of science. He is currently involved in immunology and cell biology, fields that have no relevance to fetal brain development.

His presentation is merely a recitation of a select list of anecdotal evidence, the significance of which is questionable. For instance, his claim that the Karen Quinlan case shows that it is the thalamus and not the cerebral cortex that is responsible for consciousness is based on the fact that autopsy showed the cortex to be relatively intact, but that the thalamus was extensively damaged. The modern consensus holds that the thalamus is responsible for sorting nerve signals and sending them to the appropriate part of the cortex for processing. It stands to reason that if the thalamus is severely damaged, it will be unable to continue forwarding signals. The cerebral cortex would therefore have nothing to work with, resulting in the vegetative state Quinlan had fallen into.

If anyone can find any credible scientific support for this thalamus theory, we may include that and work McCullagh in there somehow. Otherwise, I think it should be cut.

Kanwaljeet Anand, on the other hand, is a pediatrician with experience treating newborns and premature babies. He believes that pain may be processed by the somatosensory subplate, a transitory brain structure which recedes after the more permanent cerebral cortex begins to develop. Since the thalamic afferents (pain bearing nerves) only reach the subplate at week 18, long after the 10 week mark proposed by MCullagh. (First Ache, NYTimes, 2008) However, neither the RCOG nor the JAMA study accept this suggestion, pointing to a lack of data suggesting processing mechanism in the subplate. Ermadog (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think it should stay. If the "pro-life" forces are citing McCullagh, his opinion is still noteworthy. I will be adding some rebuttal material.Ermadog (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The title does not correspond with the content

For an article about neonatal perception, it talks a whole lot about fetal pain and pretty much ignores any other form of perception. Not to say that fetal pain isn't an important subject. It's just that I imagine some people (myself included) would be interested in neonatal perception in general. 81.82.101.135 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I've ever contributed to a wikipedia talkpage before, but this article has prompted me to do so. I just wanted to agree with the comment above. I'm 17 weeks pregnant and I came to this page wondering what my unborn foetus can perceive - can they hear? Can they feel cold or hot? Can they perceive light? I'm interested in finding out more about my unborn child.

This article only just answers the first question and doesn't at all answer any others. Interesting that the anti-abortionists don't seem to be at all interested in the miracle of the unborn child and what it experiences - only in arguing about abortion. I didn't come to this page because I wanted to know about foetal pain - that can go in a separate article, surely, for people who wanted to know about that?

Sorry that my first post is a complaining one. I think wikipedia is amazing in general, and I can see you have a lot to deal with... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.79.229 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an interesting TED talk about "What we learn before we're born". The speaker discusses studies about newborn behaviors that are likely learned (by sound) pre-birth.

--Turgar (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fetuses Hear Sound. OK, When? This article is a stub.

That's important the exact time in the pregnancy when. It's especially relevant to the abortion debate. I consider any perception to confer personhood on a fetus but before perception it's not a person. I don't know whether to say I'm pro-life or pro-choice or how many weeks to support abortion now, because it's so hard finding an exact number even online. It's driving me crazy.35.8.4.129 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect statement (NPOV)

This is an overly broad statement:

Scientific research generally indicates that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain until at least the 24th week.[17]

The cited report is a meta-analysis of other studies. The above statement represents the conclusions of this one report as a majority of scientific research.

--Turgar (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is foetal sleep supported by science? Why a reference to legislation about abortion, in an article about prenatal perception? Where are the other senses?

As others have pointed out, this article is supposed to be about prenatal perception but somehow appears to have focused upon prenatal pain. I have trimmed that section of some opinions, but would like other editors to consider the following:

1. Section 2 ends with three paragraphs about some suggestions that foetuses (fetuses) sleep through gestation. Is there any evidence to support this, or should it be removed?
2. Is section 2.1 at all relevant to discussion of prenatal perception?
3. Is section 3 at all relevant to discussions of prenatal perception?
4. Why is there no discussion of senses other than hearing and pain? Surely sight, taste, mood, smell, temperature sensitivity etc. (refer to Sense for more) surely can be commented upon in this article - or is there no data/no sense (in which case it should probably indicate the lack)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiguosity (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prenatal perception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014111725/http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice to http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418153229/http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=201 to http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=201
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061116044144/http://www.prochoice.org/policy/congress/fetal_pain.html to http://www.prochoice.org/policy/congress/fetal_pain.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226223517/http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html to http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)