New Fatwa: Child marriage can start in infancy
Earlier this month we saw – or rather, were once again reminded – that Islam permits pedophilia in the guise of “marriage”:
Top Saudi cleric, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan (pictured), issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for girls to marry, “even if they are in the cradle,” and that the only criterion is that “they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.”
~ Raymond Ibrahim, Jihad Watch, July 29
[Photo via islamicawakening.com]
Aug.01, 2011 6:00 am |
Feminism |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
*facepalm*
There’s a difference between a religion and certain radical strains of said religion. I think you’d be offended if someone pointed to radical Christians and said that’s what “Christianity” says.
The fatwa asserting there is no minimum age for girls to marry was issued by a top Saudi cleric, not a fringe radical.
Muhammad married a 9 year old. I’m not surprised. He’s the freaking originator of the religion. Does HE count as “certain radical strains of said religion”? Get educated.
I thought he consummated the marriage when she was 9, but married her when she was 6, xalisae. At least that’s what I read somewhere.
This quote makes me sick
That’s not marriage, it’s rape, no matter what your religion. The girl’s obviously aren’t old enough or mature enough to make life decisions like this and don’t understand what marriage is all about. This truly disgusts me and is not what God intended marriage to be.
Liz,
You’re correct. Mohammed was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, then he “consumated” the marriage when she turned nine.
How thoughtful of him to wait three years.
Wasn’t the “Virgin Mary” impregnanted when she was 12 or 13?
BTW, “Jihad Watch” is an extremely anti-Islamic website.
And while we’re talking religion, the Catholic Church opposed an abortion for a 10 year old Brazilian girl. The abortion was obtained but everyone connected with it was excommunicated. Attempting to force a 10 year old to give birth is child abuse, too.
That photo is extremely disturbing.
Nulono – who decides the difference between “radical” Islam and “normal” Islam? Is there a definitive authority?
CC – We don’t know how old Mary was, but she was old enough, under Jewish law, to be betrothed, which meant she had (at the very least) already menstruated. She could possibly have been 16.
Also, I find that your moral outrage falls flat given that you DON’T consider the murder of two innocent children to be “child abuse.” I find it revolting that you find the execution of innocents for the crimes of their biological parent to be both just and laudable. I suppose if your father commits rape, the justice system should be able to execute you for his crime, and you’d be okay with that?
Wow! What a comprehensive pro-life blog!
Why focus on just hating abortion when there are so many other things to talk about, like: why gay people are evil, how ugly female Democrats are compares to republican women, accusing chinese people of eating fetuses (in the charmingly titled “sweet and sour fetus” post), encouraging anti-condom billboards in Africa, your obsession with Sharia law, posting things from a blog called “jihad watch,” which you KNOW is definitely reputable, and MORE!
why just write on the pro-life issue when there are soooo many people to offend and alienate with stories like these? Keep up the good work!
cc, aren’t some of the girls you escort 12 or 13??
Kettle, you have a call on line 2; it’s pot.
“capable of being placed under and bearing the weight of the men”? Radical or not, the cleric who issued this order is devoid of all common decency. And so is anyone else who thinks this could ever be OK. Disgusting.
CC, the youngest girl to ever give birth was five years old. She delivered by C-section and it seems that she was not scarred for life. She refuses to name her abuser and refuses to be interviewed by the media, but she did grow up and seem to lead a normal life, having married and had children as an adult. I don’t think it’s giving birth that is the horrible abuse - it is the fact that the child was pregnant and the fact that some sick freak abused a little girl that is the method of scarring a child in this way. Aborting the baby would be just as traumatic as giving birth to a live child (a young girl would most likely have to deliver by C-section due to immature bodily structures). How exactly does abortion make the rape “go away”? It doesn’t. Just because you kill the baby doesn’t erase the abuse that caused a girl to become pregnant to begin with. And the baby did not rape the girl, and is just as innocent as she is – so why hand out the death penalty to the infant? Makes no sense. That’s barbaric.
As far as anyone who is disturbed by that picture: haven’t you learned not to trust anything this site says by now? Question everything:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp
I would also encourage you to look up photos from Christian “purity balls” and imagine what people might think if those pictures were coupled with a misleading caption like the one in this post.
Jane apparently doesn’t consider child abuse to be a pro-life concern. Interesting. I thought the pro-abortion party line was that pro-lifers don’t care about the baby after it’s born?
Thanks for that article from Snopes.com, Jane.
Mods, given the picture’s inaccuracy to the subject at hand, can it be removed?
No, I don’t think being virulently anti-Islam is an abortion issue at all. I think it’s hate mongering.
So, Jane, you’re in favor of the “fatwa” as described?
Why start caring about accuracy now, Joanna?
What are you talking about, Jane? I always care about accuracy. That’s why I find it appalling when pro-abortion websites and literature are so often grossly inaccurate regarding fetal development.
Jane,
why do you hate female unborn children?
I would never condone child rape in any form, Joanna. What his post is doing is erroneously presenting a fringe belief as representative of an entire relgion. The source website is extremely anti-Islam, not an unbiased source in the slightest.
Y’all hate when people point out fringe christian beliefs as an indicator of the mindset of your religion as a whole, right?
Good one Jasper, you caught me.
Lol alright Joanna. So you’re getting your sources about fetal development and “fetal pain” from…where? Lifenews.com? Fetusfeelspain.com? Jillstanek.com?
It’s so frustrating when pro-choice sites use real medical sources, like the new England journal of medicine, isn’t it?! The worst is when science defies what you hope and believe is true, right? Facts are the worst!!
This is wrong on so many levels.
There are fringe elements of Islam. To say that Islam condones child rape because an official issued a fatwa condoning it is the equivalent of saying that Catholicism is all about sexual abuse because some officials in the Church abused young boys. A leader does not necessarily represent the views of all of his or her fellow practitioners.
And this hatred of Islam is wrong. Beyond that it’s irrelevant to the topic of abortion. So is gay marriage.
Jane & Vannah – who decides the difference between “radical” Islam and “normal” Islam? Is there a definitive authority who does this?
I think this “fatwa” is sick and wrong regardless of its source.
Jane – I get my sources on fetal development from places like the Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, embryology and biology textbooks, etc. But I’ve found the sources you mention to have very accurate information as well. They have no reason to lie, you see. Science is on their side. You can’t say the same for the abortion industry. I wish I could say I’ve seen a pro-abortion site use the New England Journal of Medicine as a source, but thankfully nothing in that journal could support the claim that, say, 9-week-old fetuses are nothing but balls of cells without discernible heartbeats.
I suppose the same person who decides the difference between “radical” Christianity and “normal” Christianity. Or the same person who decides the difference between “radical” pro-life activism and “normal” pro-life activism.
We can spot the difference very quickly. Most pro-lifers do not bomb clinics. Most Christians do not encourage massacre in Norway.
I am not an expert on Islam, but I doubt that Jihad Watch is, either. But this hatred of Islam that we are all taught to have, this fear that Muslims only want to harm, is irrational and distressing. Religious tolerance is essential.
From Wikipedia:
[Dr. Salih bin Fawzan] is currently a member of the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Fataawa, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, a member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research.
He is also the Imam, khateeb and teacher, of Prince Mitaeb Mosque (Prince Mut’ib Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez Masjid), in al-Malzar in Riyadh.
One of Wiki’s sources is Dr. bin Fawzan’s UK Support Site.
He doesn’t sound like he’s part of a “fringe movement” of Islam to me…? Can anyone who maintains this view (that Dr. bin Fawzan is part of a radical fringe movement) please cite a source in that regard?
Vannah,
I suppose the same person who decides the difference between “radical” Christianity and “normal” Christianity.
Well, I can’t speak for Christianity as a whole, obviously, but in Catholicism that person is the Pope, in conjunction with the teaching authority of the Magesterium.
I guess I’m wondering how you can maintain that this belief belongs to “radical” Islam if there is no definitive authority to state what parts of Islam are “radical” and which are not.
To say that Islam condones child rape because an official issued a fatwa condoning it is the equivalent of saying that Catholicism is all about sexual abuse because some officials in the Church abused young boys.
Actually, no. It would be equivalent only if a bishop in the Catholic church had come out explicitly promoting the sexual abuse of children.
Show me an actual news source that has this quote.
Jane – Fox News has it, but I’m guessing that’s not a “legitimate news source,” in your opinion.
The anti-religion (they oppose both Christianity and Islam, among others) blog “Religion Poisons” also carries the story; their source is FrontPage Mag.
How about the Wall Street Journal? Does that adhere to your journalistic standards?
Jane, I’m doing a slow clap for you in this post. Bravo!!
Going back to CC at the beginning of this thread, the Virgin Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. She had no relations with man whatsoever. She was not violated in any way. She consented with full knowledge of what would come, and she gave herself entirely into God’s hands to accomplish His will.
You don’t get to talk smack about my Mother. Shame on you.
Jane Derr, CC, you’re quick to tell us how evil prolifers and Christians are, but get upset when Jill posts something negative about Islam. Double standard much?
I am not sure why this article is here, however. Saudi Arabia is known for a brand of Islam that even many Muslims consider extreme. That creep Warren Jeffs insists that he’s God prophet on the earth and its okay to bed and wed little girls, and that the prosecutors, etc., in the case are damned if they convict him. In other words, he’s a nutjob. Are we to assume that he is representative of all Mormons, even though the LDS forbade polygamy long ago and has denounced Jeffs and his actions?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189720/20110730/warren-jeffs-poligamy-trial-sexual-assault.htm
From time-to-time Jill will put posts up on topics that are not exclusively about abortion. This post about the research of Alfred Kinsey is a prime example.
https://www.jillstanek.com/rapeincest-coverup/alfred-kinsey-s.html
Those kinds of posts deal with sexual deviancy, which has as its fruit abortion, among other things.
Pro-life, ultimately, is about respect for life, born and unborn. Taking advantage of innocence is a major breach of that respect.
Here we have documentation of disrespect for innocence.
It’s Jill’s blog. She’s free free to take it down.
The Catholic Church condemns pedophilia. Their teachings states that it is abhorrent and wrong. Bishop, priest who have sexually abused children are doing something wrong and NOT FOLLOWING the teachings of their church.
Here we have an authority in the Muslim religion that is saying that child marriage is OK and approving the behavior. A Muslim will marry a child which their religion accepts and seen as permissible. The Muslim is following an ACCEPTED teaching of his religion. Very different scenario.
All I can say is there is a reason why in AMERICA there is a thing called Statutory rape! because it should be a right of any person to say NO to having sex with anyone- and a five-16yr old has no comprehenshion of what “LOVE” is nor the consequences of what that act would entail..This law under the FATWA…shows flat out that WOMEN are treated LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN PROPERTY-“as long as the child can bear the weight of the man above them” If someone raped a child in America they should LOSE THEIR MALE PARTS-just saying!
I’d like to point out that the House defeated The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act back in December. The reason? The bill “might” have been used to condone abortion, despite the fact that it contained no indication of such. But really, of course we wouldn’t want to prevent a 15 year-old from experiencing days of agonizing labor and death (talkin to you, army_wife). A first trimester abortion is way safer than complicated labor & delivery, especially in developing countries. But of course, ideology trumps medicine, and you end up with BOTH dead child-moms and unborn children.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705329708/12-year-old-Yemeni-bride-dies-while-giving-birth-to-stillborn.html
Remember, the brutal slaying of LGBTQ Ugandans is rooted in a distinctly American conservative Christian ideology.
Could you please provide a source to back up this statement, Megan?
Megan, thank you for spewing your anti-Catholic bigotry for the world to see. It helps everyone to know not to take you seriously!
Planned Parenthood does the same thing as the Catholic church officials did – hide statutory rape. Only planned Parenthood hides statutory rape of teenage girls, whereas the bishops hid statutory rape of teenage boys. Yet there is NO outcry about Planned Parenthood (and other abortionists’) persistent and on-going coverup of statutory rape, and people keep bringing up what the Catholic bishops did (or didn’t do) 30 years ago. I am Catholic who work with young teens; and I can affirm that the church officials changed their policies to prevent abuses. Planned Parenthood cannot make the same claim because the concept of statutory rape is incompatible with PP philosophy that the individual decides when he or she is mature enough for sex – not parents, not teachers, not the state. Every time someone rehashes Catholic cleric sex abuse scandal, I will bring up Planned Parenthood (and other abortionists) ongoing coverup of statutory rape. These so-called healthcare providers even brag about counseling teens that they don’t need to tell their parents.
Megan,
was the problem of clerical sexual abuse because of the TEACHING regarding pedophilia or the BEHAVIOR of people who didn’t abide by what is taught?
Again, here we have a Muslim cleric saying the BEHAVIOR is acceptable because it is part of the TEACHING.
After putting proper procedures and policies to eliminate the harmful behavior, there will not be the wide spread sexual scandal. Do you know a religion or an institution (schools, politics, police, ect) that has not had sexual abuse scandals? Have the people in authority always acted properly?
The problem was NOT Catholic teaching but people behavior. Policies, practices and disciple can be put into place to help ensure conformity to the teaching. Don’t knock the Catholic church because people refuse to abide by its teachings.
“they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.”
And Jane defends this. I guess as long as the “gentleman” bears his weight on his elbows, Jane is satisfied that this is okay.
[Megan, I remind you that Jill has a policy of zero tolerance regarding gratuitous shots at Catholic bishops and priests as all being pervs. Comment deleted. We are talking here of an actual fatwah by a specific Islamic cleric ~G.N.]
Of course the Pharmer carried this story too, and added the story of Salwa al-Mutairi, a whacko female Kuwaiti activist who advocates sex slavery. Yep….. she suggests that the muslim men enslave women of non-muslim nations and use them for sextools.
Why would a muslim woman sell out other women like this? For the SAME reason the gals of planned parenthood do it.
Apparently their past experiences with their own guys are not good, and they’d like to distract the sexual attentions of their men to other victims.
This kind of stuff perhaps wrecks Ramadan for regular Muslims. Time for them to speak out loud against these weirdos.
Jane, Megan, I agree that it’s unfair to conflate all Islam with the actions of a few. But really, where is your disgust for what this man said? From what I can tell, he is a respected Saudi cleric. Don’t you find it disturbing that he would endorse child abuse? Personally, I find sexual abuse absolutely disgusting, and the fact that a authority in ANY religion would endorse it literally makes me sick to my stomach. How can you not be disgusted by that?
And bringing the Catholic priests into it is a low blow. I don’t remember an bishop publicly endorsing the abuses that happened. There is a difference from a few sick pervs being involved in an organization and the organization itself endorsing that stuff.
If your god is evolution, then as soon as the females reproductive organs are mature enough to permit conception, implantation and gestation she is old enough to have sexual intercourse with anyone or anything she ‘chooses’.
That is the pp, feminista, humanist version of tolerance, physical autonomy and reproductive freedom.
Top Saudi cleric, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan could be a spokesweasel for pp.
Well, I am glad you can agree that it is flat out deplorable. :)
I don’t know anything about the bill to prevent child marriages, if that’s what you are talking about. It sounds like a good idea to me, I fail to see how it would encourage abortion.
The Catholic thing was different, as I was pointing out, and don’t dismiss it as biased because I am not religious and I was a victim as a child, so I wouldn’t ever be okay with an organization allowing child abuse. The church itself never taught that abusing little boys were good, unlike this Saudi sect of Islam. Catholics weren’t being told that was allowable. I agree that some officials were very wrong in how they handled it, but I don’t think it reflects on the church as a whole. Saying that the abuses were committed in the name of the church is wrong. Under the guise? Yeah, the pervs used their trusted positions to abuse boys. It isn’t any different from the Boy Scout leaders and Little League coaches that did the same. You don’t get to tar everyone with the brush of those pedos, especially when you were just complaining that Jill was doing that with Islam.
The criterion of a girl being able to bear the weight of a man is… stomach wrenching. I thank God I was not born in Saudi Arabia.
Let’s consider radicals in religion. Radical refers to the root of the religion, so a radical religious person is aiming to live like the founder and top respected people of their religion. For Islam, Osama bin Laden was considered by many of his coreligionists to be an heroic radical, living out Mohammed’s stated goals. For Christianity, Mother Teresa’s life of service to the poor and forgotten indicated a radical interpretation of Christ’s gospel to fellow Christians.
There are commonalities among religions. There are decent and cruel people in all religions. But the aim of each religion is not the same. We live in a culture that is increasingly clueless about religious belief, and so as a matter of course fails to make important distinctions.
Western silence regarding what women endure in largely Islamic countries is a result of this ignorance. We truly let our sisters down. We could do so much more to help women in that area of the world. But we don’t. We are afraid, we are in denial, or whatever. I for one am ashamed that more women who do have political power don’t fight for basic rights for women and girls.
“Pharmer would like to call your attention to the parallel practice of planned parenthood in aiding and abetting sex slavery. Could it be from similar motivations?”
Both institutions islam/pp have the same progenitor.
They both steal, kill and murder.
“Top Saudi cleric, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan could be a spokesweasel for pp.”
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
For sure, Bro.
Certainly Bin Fawzan and the planned parenthood people hold women in the same low regard.
SO how is taking away women’s choices on how they want to live their own lives not oppression…
It is a bit ironic for one religion who oppresses women to look at another religion who oppresses women and say “Hey what you are doing is wrong” They treat women like a man’s personal property and you treat women like the states property.
There is a good article about very young brides in National Geographic – I think May of 2011. Amazing how prevalent the practice is in some places.
I think by “amazing” you meant “absolutely disgusting.”
It’s interesting that two-bit thugs and miscreants use Islam as an excuse to carry on outrageous anti-social behavior, brutalizing their own people. They claim to hold to Islam in its purest form, while sinking to the lowest forms of tyranny (in the West our tyrannies are of the high sort). It seems generally true to me that it’s less Islam that inspires their violence and injustice than their own violent and unjust character that seeks refuge and rationalization in warped Islamic teachings. Alas, there are plenty of imams and midrasas who are right there with them, perpetuating the barbarism in the name of God.
Islam may simply be an attractive cover for such folk, for reasons quite unclear to me, at any rate. What receptors does Islam possibly have, for such virii?
On the other hand, folks wringing their hands over Islamaphobia (tack a “phobia” on the end of everything nowadays when you’re content to be pejorative without being in the least descriptive) really need to do a reality check. Outrageous murderous acts in Norway are a preposterous prescription, but their perpetrator was hardly wrong about the diagnosis. And yes, as a Christian I’d call the dramatic spread and rooting of Islam in Europe a pathology, inasmuch as I consider Islam to be a pernicious Christian heresy — a cancer on authentic devotion to God. This doesn’t make me “phobic” of Islam any more than I am of death itself. Yet I avoid falling off cliffs, and it would be great if Europe could escape having a fresh caliphate seated in Londonistan.
As for secularists, they’ve proven remarkably effete in Europe and utterly indifferent to the fate of Western civilization. This was inevitable; Europe lost its soul long, long ago. Expect nearly every church to become a mosque. Gee, where have we seen that before?
“Better red than dead” versus “better dead than red” during the cold war — in this new century it’s “better dhimmi than dead,” I guess. We’re all kafir — and Islam, unlike Western law, has two entirely different standards of justice depending on whether you’re a Muslim or kafir. This isn’t a trivial issue and anyone who quickly labels people “Islamaphobic” with pejorative intent in the case that concerns about the spread of Islam are emphasized, is frankly ignorant beyond belief. Especially stupid are secularists who rant about Christianists seeking theocracy but snicker at Christianists being alarmed about Islam. They might want to watch their throats — and not because of the despised Christianists.
rasqual, I agree whole heartedly with nearly all that you’ve said!!! How did that happen?
Did you know that “last month, posters were found in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Waltham Forest declaring the boroughs to be ‘Sharia-controlled zones’. The posters said: You are entering a Sharia controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced. Underneath, images indicate that smoking, alcohol and music are banned. Islamic hate preacher Anjem Choudary, who said in 2008 that gays should be stoned to death, has claimed responsibility for the campaign.”
“Islam may simply be an attractive cover for such folk, for reasons quite unclear to me, at any rate” – power, control and a good dose of misogyny?
“Especially stupid are secularists who rant about Christianists seeking theocracy but snicker at Christianists being alarmed about Islam” – as a right royal secularist I ‘rant’ about both (after all, there are some who make determined efforts to enshrine christianity in legislation and the law) but I don’t snicker at ‘christianists’ being alarmed about islam. We should all be.
Well said rasqual!
I agree with Rasqual and Reality (wow…never thought I’d say THAT). And anyone who disagrees should give the Qur’an at the very least a skim. I’ve read a lot of the Bible. I’ve read a little of the Qur’an. The Bible I found amusing. The Qur’an I found terrifying. Anyone trying to attach a “phobia” to a mere knowledge of what is going on around them really needs to educate themselves. I’m not scared of being phobic, so enjoy your name-calling. I’m more fond of facts. ;P
“I agree with Rasqual and Reality (wow…never thought I’d say THAT). ”
Strangest thing yet I have read on this site, lol.
I agree too.
Biggz
This is in response to your 6:07 post.
The real irony is that your mindset goes even further than those who consider women to be personal property and/or the property of the state. You in your infinite wisdom have relegated the unborn to personal property of his or her mother and you also believe that the state has jurisdiction over fetal life. If your real concern is that women are victims of oppression why would you want them to also become oppressors.
How can you oppress a clump of cells? How is a woman oppressing a fetus that requires her participation in order to even continue growing? It is up to the woman to decide if they want to participate in gestation or not and we cannot force their decision. If we outlaw abortion we are forcing this decision on women without consent. I mean we are not just talking about a house guest here we are talking about an organism growing inside of you and feeding off of you. Seems to me you should have a choice if you want to participate in that or not.
I know you guys think that sex is for procreation only and if you have sex you are consenting to pregnancy… however sex has many more uses and even the best birth control can fail from time to time. Heck my wife got pregnant with our daughter due to medication that nullified her birth control which we knew nothing about.
Biggz
How can you oppress a clump of cells? By enforcing your will upon it. By believing that you get to determine his or her fate. By burning, and tearing their limbs apart. Have you even seen the painting by Da Vinci called “Embryo In The Womb”? That’s at least how long they’ve known an embryo was a pre-born child and not just a clump of cells. I believe that any woman who is being oppressed needs to get away from her oppressor not abort her baby. I think it is wonderful that you and your wife had the presence of mind and heart to make a life affirming decision and not evict your daughter from her pre-born abode! May your own dwelling places always prove to be safe harbors for both of you and places of peace and mercy and of course love.
First off in Di Vinci’s time they also believed in witches and dragons…. I do not.
Di Vinci himself believed in God, angels, and demons…. I do not.
Notice he titled it “Embryo in the Womb” not baby in the womb or unborn baby in the womb…. just embryo. Miscarriages have been around as long as humans have so knowing about a embryo is not a great feat of intelligence. It sounds to me like they were smart enough to know a embryo is a embryo and not a baby.
So Chemo therapthy is oppressing cancer cells? I have never heard any doctor say anything like that and I sat through 3 separate cancer surgeries and treatments with my father totaling 3 years and spoke to tons of doctors and nurses about cell growth…
I am very sorry Myrtle but your argument holds no water to anyone who does not fear god. Atheists do not fear or even acknowledge any god.
Biggz
You would have to look at the painting to see that it’s a baby. Thankfully, now they have ultrasounds that give very accurate pictures also. I’m sorry if you think an unborn baby is the same as cancer cells but that’s just willfull ignorance. It’s an ignorance of heart though because of course you know babies develop in wombs. Can’t help you too much there if you want to persist in your delusion. I can speak up though when you insist on deluding others. Biggz, do you think if unborn babies had the ability to speak like if right before the abortionists started the killing if the baby had the ability to speak would that change your opinion or do you think you would still insist that their mothers had a right to terminate them?
@ Nulono:
Mohammad married a 6-year old and “consummated his marriage with her when she was 9”
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm
Now, tell me where you see a “certain radical strains of said religion” here?
Jane
Wasn’t it the New England Journal of medicine that changed it’s position on the ability of infants to feel pain. I don’t remember which journal it was but a few years a journal of medicine changed their views on that very subject. Science on occasion is in error. And with as much as they know about the nervous system how could they ever conclude that the pre-born does not feel pain. You are right though about facts being the worst. Can you even imagine the courage it would take for any scientist who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that pre-borns feel pain to site his or her findings. Fear is a pesky little creature. I’m believing that love and soundness of mind and heart will help the scientific community to be courageous should empiracle evidence prove that the pre-born are indeed capable of feeling pain.