To squelch their consciences thus far in the abortion debate, we've seen proponents in semantic contortions to re-define "killing", "innocent", "human", "life", "defenseless", "birth", "baby", etc.

Looks like now it's time to re-define "pain."

It's irrelevant because, let's be honest, neither the state nor the child is believed to have an interest in the child's life or welfare until, maybe, the kid is all the way through the birth canal -- one presumes a toe still in would allow a smashed skull, if the woman so chose.

Speaking biologically, the very fact that this conversation is being had is ridiculous. There is nothing magical about birth that would suddenly cause a baby to feel pain. I'm not so much of an expert to know when exactly those nerve endings develop, but chances are good that they are pretty early on. 20 weeks sounds about right, though maybe a little late. It doesn't say how he did his research, but unless it was via fetal brain scans, then he was probably underestimating. Pain is probably felt earlier than the child can react to it, and so earlier than he would have detected.

As for the hairsplitting over "likely" vs. "definite," that just shows how little the ACLU either cares for or knows about science. But science has always had very little to do with abortion law.

Most people are in favor of capital punishment, but not if the means of execution were smashing the condemned's head in with a sock full of batteries. Accepting this fight is a major mistake for those who support legalized abortion, since it will only increase the number of people who actually know what "partial-birth" abortions really entail, and publicity is not their friend.

In addition to the above excellent comments, I would add, do we now simply use the ability to feel pain as the determining factor when deciding who we are allowed to kill?

A little general anesthesia and it'll be open season on anybody you want to off. Oh, yay!

Nerves develop along with blood vessels -- the two are created together -- and they begin developing very early in the baby's life. I think they're really debating when some form of consciousness develops, so that the pain reaction is not just reflexive but also conscious.

Regardless, it's absurd to think that late-term abortions don't cause pain. Does anyone doubt that they do?

Yes, irrelevant, because whether a person can endure pain, or how much, should not be the standard for anything.

My own view is that, working backward from the pretty well agreed moment of death (much less controversial than the beginning of life, anyway), I see a seamless biological process. I don't think you can justify intervening at any point just for convenience.

Some people are said to be nearly insensitive to pain, but we don't segregate them out and declare open season on them just for that.

I agree with Harry. Any drawing of lines between conception and death would be purely arbitrary. On what basis should we put forward a criteria such as pain or consciousness or viability? Each of these criteria can be used to euthanatize people who are already born. If an argument based on the ability to feel pain is used to uphold the partial birth abortion ban, it may be used in later court cases as a precedent to strengthen abortion protections prior to 20 weeks.

Robert:

Exactly. Life is life.

I would simply argue for a little consistency. Following Harry's observation, there is a fairly widely accepted medical/legal/social definition of death, viz., the absence of heartbeat and brain waves. The presence of either is presumptive evidence of life, justifying recessitative attempts or maintenance, while the presence of both is conclusive.

Under these criteria, the abortion of a fetus having both heartbeat and brain waves would have to be considered murder. This would eliminate all third-trimester and late second-trimester abortions, which is about all that can reasonably be expected politically. While not perfect, it would at least be a step in the right direction.

I am reminded of the controversy over vivsection (dissection of living animals) during the Victorian Era.

The Anti-Vivisectionists -- the "animal rights activists" of their day -- argued that vivisection was cruelty to animals, because it caused them pain.

The Official Scientific Community pooh-poohed this idea, working from the Cartesian viewpoint that only humans had consciousness and animals were simple biological automatons, entirely driven by stimulus-response reflexes:

"See how the blind reflexes of this automaton produce such a convincing simulation of pain as it is vivisected. If We Didn't Know Better, we might actually think that the animal is actually feeling pain!"

Anuimals feel pain. They just aren't human.