Do the unborn feel pain? If so, when? And what does it mean for abortion rights? William Egginton, a humanities professor at Johns Hopkins, analyzes the debate in an essay for The New York Times.
There are several reasons why pro-life activists and legislators want to establish, scientifically, that fetuses feel pain at some point in the gestational process-- and, by extension, would feel pain during an abortion.
Egginton believes that pro-life legislators are using fetal pain to prove that the unborn possess fully human consciousness. This would lead, supposedly, to the unborn being declared legal and constitutional "persons" with rights.
Certainly, pro-life activists and legislators want the unborn to be legal "persons." But I'm not sure that this is the primary attraction of fetal pain research and legislation. This kind of activism serves an important political purpose just by convincing people that fetuses feel pain in the act of abortion.
A major premise in pro-life thinking is that people will reject abortion if they can be made fully aware of the humanity of the unborn and the horror of the process of abortion itself in killing a human being. Establishing that fetuses feel pain a) reinforces the human nature of the unborn, and b) makes the process of abortion seem particularly cruel.
One can see this premise operating in legislation requiring that a pregnant women receives an ultrasound before getting an abortion. Another example is the tactic of some pro-life groups to 'shock' people with pictures of the unborn in the womb (establish humanity) and pictures of aborted fetuses (horror of abortion).
Regarding fetal pain specifically, the famous film The Silent Scream, produced by Bernard Nathanson, purports to show a fetus instinctively reacting against being subject to a saline injection abortion (an older technique of second trimester abortion). The film (either accurately or through clever editing and narration) portrays the act of abortion as torture for the unborn child.
Fetal pain also plays a role in some conversion narratives-- stories of people who were pro-choice but were converted to the pro-life movement. A recent example is the conversion story of Abby Johnson, author of the book Unplanned, who left her post as the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas after having a crisis of conscience. According to Johnson, her rejection of abortion was a long time coming but was cemented when she witnessed an ultrasound-guided abortion of thirteen-week-old fetus. According to her, seeing the fetus jerking around and attempting to 'avoid' the vacuum aspirator was unbearable.
What does the science tell us, and what are its implications?
Regarding the science, the evidence is unclear at this point-- or, it is safe to say, there is no evidence that clearly shows that fetuses do feel pain.
Science-based arguments over reproductive issues are subject to the same kind of wrangling as other areas of American life (like the environment, for example). Both sides have their own policy conclusions backed by supposedly solid evidence and attack the other side's proof as faulty.
In the area of abortion, there are lots of battles over scientific questions. Do abortions increase the chance of a woman getting breast cancer? Do abortions cause depression or abortion regret? How does increased access to contraception affect the unintended pregnancy rate and rate of abortion? Are abortions ever medically necessary? Are certain forms of birth control contraceptive or abortifacient in nature? And so on.
Pro-life activists argue that the greatest scientific fact regarding abortion is that the unborn are identifiably "human" from the moment of conception. Fetal pain, as noted, is seen as strengthening the case for humanity.
But what if most of the population believed a) fetuses are "human" and b) fetuses feel pain: Would that automatically lead, legally and ethically, to abortion being rejected? It seems obvious that the answer is "yes."
I'm not so sure. Setting aside my own beliefs on those factual questions, I think that the ontological status of the unborn as "human" is not the end of the inquiry when it comes to the ethics and law of abortion. I have written elsewhere about how establishing the humanity of the fetus does not, for example, automatically lead to granting the fetus constitutional rights under the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, determining that a given being is "human" is not a purely scientific enterprise, as it involves, inherently, a value judgment about what we consider to be the necessary and sufficient indicia of "humanity." The question of humanity-- or more precisely, the question of at what point someone becomes fully human-- is as much a question of philosophy or theology as one of science. Egginston observes:
Links:
Essay by William Egginton in The Stone blog at The New York Times (October 28, 2012): Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe V. Wade?
Link to Abby Johnson's home page
An op-ed I wrote for the Erie Times-News about personhood and the unborn: Fetal rights won't affect the fundamental right of abortion
There are several reasons why pro-life activists and legislators want to establish, scientifically, that fetuses feel pain at some point in the gestational process-- and, by extension, would feel pain during an abortion.
Egginton believes that pro-life legislators are using fetal pain to prove that the unborn possess fully human consciousness. This would lead, supposedly, to the unborn being declared legal and constitutional "persons" with rights.
Certainly, pro-life activists and legislators want the unborn to be legal "persons." But I'm not sure that this is the primary attraction of fetal pain research and legislation. This kind of activism serves an important political purpose just by convincing people that fetuses feel pain in the act of abortion.
A major premise in pro-life thinking is that people will reject abortion if they can be made fully aware of the humanity of the unborn and the horror of the process of abortion itself in killing a human being. Establishing that fetuses feel pain a) reinforces the human nature of the unborn, and b) makes the process of abortion seem particularly cruel.
One can see this premise operating in legislation requiring that a pregnant women receives an ultrasound before getting an abortion. Another example is the tactic of some pro-life groups to 'shock' people with pictures of the unborn in the womb (establish humanity) and pictures of aborted fetuses (horror of abortion).
Regarding fetal pain specifically, the famous film The Silent Scream, produced by Bernard Nathanson, purports to show a fetus instinctively reacting against being subject to a saline injection abortion (an older technique of second trimester abortion). The film (either accurately or through clever editing and narration) portrays the act of abortion as torture for the unborn child.
Fetal pain also plays a role in some conversion narratives-- stories of people who were pro-choice but were converted to the pro-life movement. A recent example is the conversion story of Abby Johnson, author of the book Unplanned, who left her post as the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas after having a crisis of conscience. According to Johnson, her rejection of abortion was a long time coming but was cemented when she witnessed an ultrasound-guided abortion of thirteen-week-old fetus. According to her, seeing the fetus jerking around and attempting to 'avoid' the vacuum aspirator was unbearable.
What does the science tell us, and what are its implications?
Regarding the science, the evidence is unclear at this point-- or, it is safe to say, there is no evidence that clearly shows that fetuses do feel pain.
Science-based arguments over reproductive issues are subject to the same kind of wrangling as other areas of American life (like the environment, for example). Both sides have their own policy conclusions backed by supposedly solid evidence and attack the other side's proof as faulty.
In the area of abortion, there are lots of battles over scientific questions. Do abortions increase the chance of a woman getting breast cancer? Do abortions cause depression or abortion regret? How does increased access to contraception affect the unintended pregnancy rate and rate of abortion? Are abortions ever medically necessary? Are certain forms of birth control contraceptive or abortifacient in nature? And so on.
Pro-life activists argue that the greatest scientific fact regarding abortion is that the unborn are identifiably "human" from the moment of conception. Fetal pain, as noted, is seen as strengthening the case for humanity.
But what if most of the population believed a) fetuses are "human" and b) fetuses feel pain: Would that automatically lead, legally and ethically, to abortion being rejected? It seems obvious that the answer is "yes."
I'm not so sure. Setting aside my own beliefs on those factual questions, I think that the ontological status of the unborn as "human" is not the end of the inquiry when it comes to the ethics and law of abortion. I have written elsewhere about how establishing the humanity of the fetus does not, for example, automatically lead to granting the fetus constitutional rights under the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, determining that a given being is "human" is not a purely scientific enterprise, as it involves, inherently, a value judgment about what we consider to be the necessary and sufficient indicia of "humanity." The question of humanity-- or more precisely, the question of at what point someone becomes fully human-- is as much a question of philosophy or theology as one of science. Egginston observes:
. . . while neuroscience may or may not be able to tell us something about the development of fetal nociceptive capacity, it has nothing to say about the fundamental question of what counts as a full-fledged person deserving of the rights afforded by a society. Science can no more decide that question than it can determine the existence or non-existence of God. Indeed, I doubt that members of the Idaho State Legislature would approve of using scientific evidence of the nonexistence of God to write a law depriving citizens of the right to worship as they choose; in the same way, they should avoid turning to neuroscience for evidence concerning the limits of personhood.This is not to say that science is unimportant. To the contrary, we need more people across the political spectrum to seek out and respect an understanding of the world grounded in empirical evidence. An empirically accurate view of the world, however, is only the stage on which ethical and theological debates are played out. Whether the unborn feel pain is a very important question but only sets the stage for addressing the questions of ultimate significance.
Links:
Essay by William Egginton in The Stone blog at The New York Times (October 28, 2012): Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe V. Wade?
Link to Abby Johnson's home page
An op-ed I wrote for the Erie Times-News about personhood and the unborn: Fetal rights won't affect the fundamental right of abortion
Comments