>Well, by all means, don’t worry their pretty little heads about it.
The patronizing pro-abortion faction of the Indiana Senate is blocking the addition of informed consent concerning the potential of pain felt by unborn children who are being killed.
Because we don’t know.
And because it might shock someone.
And, besides, it’s so rare.
What will the good abortionists do when the mother of a dead child discovers – to her shock and feelings of betrayal by the State – exactly that her child was her child and he or she did, indeed, feel pain?
The “dispute” is based on a specialized definition of pain that requires that the pain be anticipated, remembered, recalled and associated with the stimuli:
The International Association for the Study of Pain defines pain as ‘an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.’ . . .
“. . . true pain experience [develops] postnatally along with memory, anxiety and other cognitive brain functions.”
In the UK, anesthesia for the child has been recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists after 24 weeks, but some researchers have suggested that the anesthesia be given much earlier. The neurochemical and hormonal response of the unborn child is similar to the what we see in his mother when she is in pain. The neurophysiology is sufficient to assume pain (even by the convoluted jargon that opponents use) by 21 weeks and we know they are “definitely established”by 26 weeks.