Giberrish
The burden of proof rests on the party who attempts to proove a positive. I need some amount of proof in order to discount it. It is impossible to prove a negative with no proof of the positive.
Also, you do know that i'm only arguing for fetus before the 3 trimester, right? But no matter, i'll respond to the proof section of the article.
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm53.asp wrote:Specifically it was demonstrated that plasma adrenalin, noradrenaline, glucagon, aldosterone, corticosterone, 11-deoxycorticosterone and 11-deoxycortisol levels were significantly greater in the non-fentanyl group than the fentanyl group up to 24 hours after surgery. The reduction of the 'stress response' to surgery by fentanyl was considered to be responsible for the improved clinical outcome of the fentanyl group who required less post-surgical ventilatory support and had reduced circulatory or metabolic complications.
In other words, newborn babies without fentanyl, a narcotic analgetic, feel pain, while those who do receive analgetic do not. Basically, born babies feel pain, and when that happens they release certain chemicals.
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm53.asp wrote:Anand and his colleagues later advanced these important and impressive findings in a report indicating that neonates receiving deep anaesthesia during surgery had improved post-operative morbidity compared with those neonates who received lighter anaesthesia. The reduced hormonal response and improved clinical outcome following invasive surgery in conjunction with anaesthetics used for pain relief in adults led naturally to the conclusion that the neonate could feel pain and that this pain needed to be controlled.
Again, chemicals associated with pain.
The impression that a fetus experiences sensation is apparent at 7.5 weeks gestation when reflex responses to somatic stimuli begin.
Ok, so this 7.5 week old fetus also releases chemicals. They then draw the conclusion that 7.5 week old fetus's feel pain
Prior to 26 weeks the thalamocortical fibres have not yet penetrated the cortical plate (15), and it seems unlikely, therefore, that the cortical structures considered necessary for pain are responding to noxious stimulation.
Oops! we were wrong, thats impossible. Here, the technique they used has proven wrong. These chemicals are released whether or not the subject can feel pain, because both the neonate who can feel pain releases them, and the unborn child who cannot feel pain releases them. Therefore, the chemicals are meaningless.
Having established that the necessary neurobiology for pain is in place after 26 weeks and that behavioral responses to noxious stimulation are present in very premature babies of approximately 26 weeks gestation, it is logical to suggest that a fetus of 26 weeks gestation or more will launch a similar hormonal response to invasive practice as that observed in the neonate undergoing surgery.
By using this debunked technique that they themselves proved wrong, they came to the conclusion that 26 week old babies feel pain.
This isn't proof, this is technobabble with the hopes that you never actually read the context of the report.
No, i'm not reading the entire paper. I'll just read the proof section, since the entire paper will be based on that part's validity.