London's The Daily Mail, followed a 16-year-old (photo right) aborting her 16-week baby and told their story in, "What REALLY happens during an abortion: One surgeon finally tells the truth," October 12.
What a refreshingly honest article, which we are certainly unused to in the U.S. Part of it discussed fetal pain....
But in Britain... 200,000 abortions [were] carried out last year....About 20,000 abortions a year are performed after 12 weeks - 10% of the total....
One of the most powerful pieces of anti-abortion propaganda ever produced was a 1984 film called The Silent Scream [see below], which purported to show the ultrasound image of a foetus being aborted - it's mouth apparently wide open in agony.
In the mid-Nineties, partly in response to growing public concern about such issues, the RCOG [Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists] put together a panel of experts who came to the reassuring conclusion that the foetus couldn't feel pain until 26 weeks gestation - safely beyond the abortion time limit.
They said the part of the brain that responds to pain simply isn't developed at 26 weeks. In other words, any physical movements the foetus displays before then are purely reflex actions - the foetus is not aware and can't feel anything.
But we found disturbing research in America that directly contradicts this established view. It came from Dr Sunny Anand, who has a distinguished record in helping to prove that very young babies can feel pain. When he was based at Oxford University in the 1980s his work helped to ensure that newborn babies were routinely given pain relief for surgical procedures.
His latest research is extremely technical and covers two areas. First, he's been comparing how newborn babies and unborn foetuses react to any kind of stress, including pain.
He's found similar changes in their hormones and their blood flow, suggesting that foetuses can indeed respond to pain.
Secondly, he's been researching - using rats - exactly which parts of the developing brain are used to detect pain.
He says that while the adult uses the very top section of the brain, the foetus has the first flickerings of sensation in the area below that. Crucially, this part of the brain develops before 26 weeks.
His conclusions could have enormous consequences for the abortion debate. He told Dispatches: "I believe that foetuses can feel pain very likely by 20 weeks of gestation and possibly even earlier."
Rosary Films made a high resolution version of The Silent Scream available via YouTube two months ago. It has been called "the most important video on abortion ever made." The baby filmed while being aborted was only 12 weeks old. His or her heartrate went from a norm of 140 to 200 while being drawn and quartered, indicating the probability babies feel pain much earlier than 20 weeks.
View Part I, 5:24, here.
View Part II, 6:12, here.
Part III, 11:03, shows the actual abortion on ultrasound:
View Part IV, 5:19, here.
View Part V, 3:48, here.
Why do we give every benefit of doubt to animals feeling pain, and make every legal precaution, but not preborn humans?
[HT: moderator jasper]
Comments:
Despite the "The Silent Scream" being discredited, and despite the heart rate not having anything necessarily to do with pain, Anand's stuff is nothing new, and his opinion of pain at 20 weeks is certainly up for argument.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 15, 2007 7:03 AMSilent Scream?
"The Facts Speak Louder than "The Silent Scream"
In the mid-1980s, leaders of the anti-abortion movement produced a video called The Silent Scream. The video, epitomizing the anti-abortion agenda and strategy, tried to shift the focus of the abortion debate away from compassion for the health and needs of the woman to an exaggerated concern for the fetus.
Although riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as well as misleading statements and exaggerations, The Silent Scream is still wildly popular with anti-abortion zealots. And it continues to be a key tool in their propaganda efforts.
Originally designed to frighten American women away from choosing abortion, the video is now shown worldwide to troubled women who turn to so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" for assistance with their problem pregnancies. Clips from the film even run continuously on the World Wide Web.
As soon as it was released, Planned Parenthood recognized that The Silent Scream would be used to propagate harmful myths that could endanger women's health and the constitutional right to choose abortion and jeopardize the lives and careers of abortion providers. To expose these distortions and deceits, Planned Parenthood convened a panel of medical experts to review and critique the video. Panel members were:
Sally Faith Dorfman, MD
Assistant Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai
Hart Peterson, MD
Chief of Pediatric Neurology, New York Hospital,
Clinical Professor of Neurology in Pediatrics, Cornell University Medical Center
William Rashbaum, MD
Assistant Clinical Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Seymour L. Romney, MD
Professor, Ob/Gyn, Director, Gynecological Cancer Research, and former Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Allan Rosenfield, MD
Professor, Ob/Gyn and Public Health, Acting Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Director, Center for Population and Family Health, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University
Herbert G. Vaughan, Jr. MD
Professor of Neuroscience, Neurology and Pediatrics, Director, Rose F. Kennedy Center for Research in Mental Retardation and Human Development, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Ming-Neng Yeh, MD
Associate Clinical Professor, Dept. of Ob/Gyn Ultrasound Laboratory, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center.
Here is their critique, The Facts Speak Louder, as it was first published in 1985:
The Facts Speak Louder
The Planned Parenthood Critique of The Silent Scream
Introduction
Those who seek to restrict or eliminate access to safe, legal abortion in this country have launched another attack in their desperate attempt to win the hearts and minds of the American public. This approach consists of a "documentary" film titled The Silent Scream, which allegedly portrays the performance of an abortion done under ultrasonography.
The film represents an attempt to shift the focus in the abortion debate to the fetus and away from any concern or compassion for women in need of abortion services. It is an attempt to deny the desperation that once forced American women into the life-threatening, humiliating experiences of the unsafe and often lethal abortions.
The Silent Scream, which was hailed by President Reagan, sent to every member of Congress, shown in part or in total on television news and other programs across the country, and whose text was read into the Congressional Record, has been treated as factual, when the opposite is true.
From its title, to the description of a fetus as a "person," through the descriptive narration provided by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the documentary aspects of this film are flawed and biased. The film is riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies, misleading statements, and exaggerations. And through innuendo, the film attempts to denigrate the efforts of Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health and rights organizations to provide safe, legal, inexpensive reproductive health care services, including abortion, for women who want and need these services.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in an effort to increase public awareness about the film's flaws and biases, convened a panel of internationally known and respected physicians who are expert in various disciplines to review and critique The Silent Scream. The panel's finding are incorporated in this booklet.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America is committed to assuring that all individuals have the freedom to make their own decisions about whether or when to have a child. To help individuals make and implement those decisions, Planned Parenthood is committed to expanding access to all of the information and services needed to prevent unintended pregnancies. Likewise, for all women who are faced with unwanted pregnancies, Planned Parenthood is committed to preserving the constitutionally protected right to obtain medically safe, legal abortions.
Medical Inaccuracies in The Silent Scream
CLAIM: The 12-week fetus experiences pain.
FACTS: At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 2627 weeks' gestation (2425 weeks' fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus
We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.
We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.
To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.
CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).
FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.
An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.
What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.
In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.
CLAIM: Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.
FACTS: The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.
CLAIM: The fetus emits "the silent scream."
FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 2627 weeks' gestation (2425 weeks' fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.
CLAIM: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.
FACTS: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman's womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.
CLAIM: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of "crushing instruments" for extraction.
FACTS: At 12 weeks' gestation (10 weeks' fetal age) and even 12 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.
Misleading Statements, Exaggerations and Innuendoes in The Silent Scream
CLAIMS: "Brain waves have existed for six weeks" in the fetus displayed on the screen.
EXPERT OPINON: Although some electrical impulses have been recorded as early as 10 weeks' gestation, these cannot be interpreted as or compared with brain waves. Genuine brain waves do not occur until the third trimester.
CLAIMS: Fetal heart rate rose from 140 to 200, which is abnormally high and reflective of fetal response to "imminent mortal danger."
EXPERT OPINION: The heart rate of the fetus portrayed in the film does not change significantly at any time. Nevertheless, a fetal heart rate of 200 is within the normal range (normal 180200 beats per minute) for this stage of pregnancy. It is also unlikely that the fetus had a heart rate of 140 that rose to 200. A rate of 140 is generally noted in the latter half of pregnancy.
CLAIMS: The large, well-developed fetal model intermittently picked up and displayed during the narrative of the abortion procedure is representative of a 12-week fetus.
EXPERT OPINION: The fetal model displayed during the abortion procedure is much larger than a fetus of a 12 weeks' gestation model visualized by ultrasonography. The model compared in size to a fetus of 18 weeks' gestation (about 14cm or 5" in crown-rump length [CRL]) as opposed to a fetus of 12 weeks gestation (about 6cm or 2" in CRL). Such an inaccurate comparison is invalid.
CLAIMS: Many women who have an abortion suffer severe and lasting psychological damage.
EXPERT OPINION: Serious emotional problems following abortion are uncommon. Most women report a sense of relief, although some may experience temporary depression. Serious psychological disturbances after abortion occur less frequently than after childbirth.
CLAIMS: There were 100,000 illegal abortions annually in the US in 1963.
EXPERT OPINION: 100,000 illegal abortions is considered by experts to be an underestimation. Although there are no accurate data on the number of illegal abortions prior to its legal performance, Dr. Christopher Tietze, a demographer who was known worldwide for the scientific quality of his work, estimated that in 1963, the numbers ranged between 200,000 and 1,200,000. It is generally believed that the figure was closer to the higher level, and has risen little since abortion was legalized (currently about 1,500,000). In 1963, only those botched abortions having serious complications requiring hospitalization could be counted. Without a legal requirement for reporting, there are no accurate estimations as to what percentage of the degrading, dangerous, illegal abortions was successful without such complications.
CLAIM: The crime syndicate is heavily involved in the abortion industry today.
EXPERT OPINION: There is nothing to prove or even suggest that the crime syndicate is currently involved in the provision of abortion services. However, it is a well-known fact that organized crime was heavily involved with illegal abortion. The high cost of illegal abortion made it lucrative for underworld elements. In the 1960s, illegal abortions cost from $750 to several thousand dollars. Considering inflation rates over the past 20 years, the cost of illegal abortions now would be more than triple that of the 1960s. Today [1985] the average cost for a first-trimester abortion is $200.
CLAIM: Quoting from Williams' Obstetrics, the fetus is amenable to intrauterine therapy and is to be considered as a second patient.
EXPERT OPINION: The statement in Williams' Obstetrics text is true and intended to stimulate further interest and research in fetal and maternal relationships so as to improve the health of the mother and the autonomous newborn. However, in the film presentation, Dr. Nathanson focuses only on the fetus, totally ignoring the pregnant woman, who is the first patient and the thrust of the text. He misconstrues Williams' statement and implies that Williams considers the fetus the primary patient an unacceptable premise under any circumstances.
Questions and Other Problems
QUESTION: Does a first-trimester abortion take so long to perform? It seemed to go on for a very extended period of time.
ANSWER: No, an uncomplicated first-trimester abortion usually takes less than ten minutes to perform.
QUESTION: Is it appropriate to refer to a fetus as unborn child, with the same right as other human beings?
ANSWER: No. Constitutionally, a fetus has no rights of personhood. Most legal precedent in English law attributes personhood to the live born.
QUESTION: The film generates sympathy for the fetus. What about the woman who needs an abortion? She is conspicuously absent from the film.
ANSWER: The film ignores the plight of the woman seeking abortion and instead tries to shift the focus to the fetus. It is essential that this defect of the film be placed in correct perspective by reminding people of the horrors to which women were subjected when abortion was illegal, the fact that current contraceptive methods fail, as well as the critical situations that can occur in a women's life which lead her to seek and obtain an abortion.
It must be remembered that the US Supreme Court did not invent abortion when it legalized the procedure with its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Illegal, unsafe abortion existed for hundreds and probably thousands of years, and it still exists in some societies. Legislation to prohibit abortion will not work. Even if illegal, as in the pre-1973 era, women of means would continue to have access to abortion, whereas those who could not pay the price of safe abortion would be forced into the degrading, back-alley tragedies of the past.
QUESTION: If Dr. Nathanson is so anti-abortion, how could he participate in the filming of an actual abortion procedure?
ANSWER: By involving himself in the performance of an abortion, which he states in the film is, in his opinion, the murder of an unborn person, and by misrepresenting the medical facts that are widely known, Nathanson fits the category of a zealot. Zealots will stop at nothing in their attempts to win their cause. Such zeal encourages the kind of fanaticism that exists among those who [bomb and vandalize abortion clinics.]
QUESTION: What about the dead fetuses in disposal containers that are flashed on the screen? Are they all products of late abortion?
ANSWER: Most of these fetuses are so large and in such a state of deterioration that they are actually stillborns (fetuses spontaneously born dead) rather than aborted fetuses. It is possible that some of the smaller fetuses resulted from late saline abortion. Late abortions (after 22 weeks' gestation) constitute less than one percent of all abortions. Many late abortions are performed as a result of fetal abnormalities that can only be diagnosed later in pregnancy or other extreme hardship cases.
QUESTION: What is our response to Dr. Nathanson's statement that Planned Parenthood does not obtain informed consent for abortion, and should show the film to all women requesting termination of pregnancy?
ANSWER: Planned Parenthood takes great care to advise and counsel women and their partners of the various options for managing an unwanted pregnancy. These include continuing the pregnancy with the options of keeping the child or giving it up for adoption, or having an abortion. Those who elect abortion are advised, as with other surgical procedures, of the risks and benefits that may be associated with the procedure. They are given a written fact sheet detailing the potential complications that can occur with abortion. As part of an individual counseling session, all questions are answered and an informed request form for the procedure is signed. For those who wish further information about the fetus and its developmental stages, this information is provided. To require that women receive such information or view the film when they do not wish it is punitive. The Supreme Court has declared that such requirements go beyond the bounds of information required for informed consent and have struck down restrictive ordinances that would impose such requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cited References
Dorfman, Sally Faith, et al. (1985). The Facts Speak Louder: Planned Parenthoods Critique of The Silent Scream. New York: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
The Silent Scream. Produced by Donald S. Smith. 28 min. American Portrait Films, 1984. Digital Video Disk.
Published: 03.01.02 | Updated: 11.14.06
Published by the Katharine Dexter McCormick Library
1985 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Media Contacts
New York: 212-261-4650
Washington, DC: 202-973-4882
Public Policy Contact
Washington, DC: 202-973-4848 "
The birth process inflicts pain and trauma on the emerging fetus/infant.
When do we outlaw childbirth, or is it OK to inflict pain as long as it suits YOUR agenda?
Seriously, if you want to outlaw abortion because it MIGHT inflict pain on the fetus, you really should outlaw childbirth, which we KNOW causes extended pain and trauma to the fetus.
Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2007 7:15 AMDoug,
you wrote:
Anand's stuff is nothing new, and his opinion of pain at 20 weeks is certainly up for argument.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 15, 2007 7:03 AM
Why would anyone want to argue with Anand's stuff?
Laura,
You wrote:
The birth process inflicts pain and trauma on the emerging fetus/infant.
Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2007 7:06 AM
I'm not being a smarty pants, but I haven't heard this about the birth process. Where did you see that?
Posted by: hippie at October 15, 2007 7:39 AMDoug and Laura,
While some say the Silent Scream is discredited, no one seems to say that it isn't really an abortion or that the baby isn't alive, moving etc.
The only difference seems to be the editorial comments.
The abortionist claims one view and PP another.
This is simple disagreement.
Posted by: hippie at October 15, 2007 7:42 AMTotally OT, but I thought Jill's regulars migh like to know that I've stumbled onto three abortion deaths in the US that I'd previously not known of, associated with RU-486.
I'm trying to track down more information.
Posted by: Christina at October 15, 2007 8:00 AMThe abortionist claims one view and PP another.
This is simple disagreement.
Posted by: hippie at October 15, 2007 7:42 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No.
Nathanson makes boneheaded remarks like suggesting the space between the fetus' chin and torso is a screaming mouth. The innacuracies go on FOREVER.
An esteemed panel of experts found the entire piece absurd. (Silent Scream has been debunked many times by throngs of experts. I'm astonished anyone still believes this crap...)
Hippie, it's an abortion and an alive fetus - no argument there.
Laura posted stuff about the movie, and off the top of my head, what I remember is that Nathanson claims a 12 week fetus "feels pain." This is ludicrous. At the very least there is no such proof of it.
Also, the claim was made that the 12 week fetus made conscious attempts to move - again, at the least totally unproven.
He picks up this overly-large and overly-developed model at various times, pretending it represents the 12 week fetus.
In the film, Nathanson not only lies about what is known to be medical fact, and about organize crime being involved with providing abortions, he says he thinks that abortion is murder, yet he was involved in performing an abortion. Oh brother..... My opinion - the guy wanted to sell books, etc.
Some say that Nathanson made false claims when he was with PP, etc. Could be - he certainly has been false since.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 15, 2007 8:12 AMWhy would anyone want to argue with Anand's stuff?
Hippie, because the question is open if what he talks about is actually mentally experiencing pain. Is there any emotion involved, etc?
Doug
"(1990):About 10,000 Americans each year lose their lives because of taking aspirin. These deaths are entirely separate from accidental overdose in children. Aspirin is the trade name for acetylsalicylic acid."
"(1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)"
Source: Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, 1992;92:21-4.
Hippie, because the question is open if what he talks about is actually mentally experiencing pain. Is there any emotion involved, etc?
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 15, 2007 8:14 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nathanson also claims that the fetus "fears" the cannula. (Do you suppose the fetus was afraid of the dark?)
Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2007 8:21 AMActually, during the birthing process the baby's heart rate is closely monitored and if it seems to be in undue stress (raised rate that does not go down, or too much fluctuation) they prep the mother for emergency surgery and do a C-section - all for the health of the baby.
Labor and delivery do stress the baby - but since living in a post-term uterine environment is more harmful and potentially fatal, the benefit outweighs the risk of temporary stress.
I'm not aware that childbirth causes the baby extreme pain, however, and certainly not pain comparable to suffering chemical burns over 100% of their body or having limbs forcibly removed. Can you send me link to that study?
Posted by: Milehimama at October 15, 2007 8:23 AMDoug,
This from the JAMA,
"No human studies have directly examined the development of thalamocortical circuits associated with pain perception. The developmental age at which thalamic pain fibers reach the cortex has been inferred from studies of other thalamocortical circuits, which may or may not develop at the same time as thalamic fibers mediating cortical perception of pain."
___________________________________
To me this says we don't understand completely the relationship between brain development and pain.
To the question of pain relief, we can choose to offer pain relief because someone may feel pain or we can choose not to offer it because they may not feel pain.
I was offered epidural anesthesia during childbirth although I didn't have pain. Other people do however.
I think offering pain relief is appropriate if there is some possibility of pain.
Posted by: hippie at October 15, 2007 8:47 AMForget about fetal pain. Forget about "screams" and air intake. Forget about sentience.
How can you look at that video, see a living creature having it's limbs ripped off and it's head imploded and defend your position?
Ten bucks says if that was a video of puppies, you'd all be up in arms!
Posted by: mk at October 15, 2007 8:57 AMI still wonder what anyone thinks of the exception for an abortion based on the mother's psychological health when there is not evidence of benefit to psychological health.
Posted by: hippie at October 15, 2007 8:57 AMIt doesn't matter if the baby was actually screaming or not. He/she appeared to be. It's still a live ultrasound of an abortion, and it's very upsetting.
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 8:59 AMFirstly, most abortions happen before week 16, so still before the "pain" barrier.
Secondly, increase in heart rate, and other physical reactions are NOT the same as feeling pain. if you cut into a tree, sap flows, and it tries to cover the wound, then heals. it reacts to the damage. Does this mean trees FEEL PAIN?
Posted by: Jonathan at October 15, 2007 9:21 AMJonathan, does this mean you are comparing the unborn with trees?
Posted by: Carrie at October 15, 2007 9:23 AMCarrie; No, im using an example to illistrate a point. our bodies react to fix us even if we dont feel pain. have you ever cut yourself and not known it? i have many times..... my body still reacted tho, and healed itself.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 15, 2007 9:32 AMJonathan,
What about offering pain relief because there may be pain?
Even though I didn't actually have pain, I was offered pain relief for the possibility of pain.
What is wrong with offering pain relief given the possibility of pain?
Posted by: hippie at October 15, 2007 9:47 AMHippi:
nothing is wrong with it. im merely saying the "pain" argument in general is flawed since even with the new study, most abortions happen well before that. and that a physical reaction can be reflex, not feeling.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 15, 2007 9:50 AMHippie, exactly. Why not offer pain relief? Both sides can site studies to prove their point regarding pain or lack thereof. Why not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt in this regard?
Posted by: Carrie at October 15, 2007 9:54 AM"Secondly, increase in heart rate, and other physical reactions are NOT the same as feeling pain"
How about feeling fear then? WHY would the baby's heartrate go up????? Think people!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 15, 2007 9:59 AMAnon;
your heart rate goes up when you are injured to increase blood flow and quickly clot the wound. its a physical reaction, same as you get when you hit your knee and your leg kicks.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 15, 2007 10:05 AMAnonymous,
Another anonymous is already using your name...and trust me. You don't want to be confused with her.
Posted by: mk at October 15, 2007 10:10 AMWell let's look at two topics in context.
A woman goes for an abortion of a 24 week fetus which she gets because protecting her mental health is an exception to the ban on late term abortions even though there really isn't good scientific evidence that the abortion will protect her mental health. (The studies that do exist show a deliterious effect on mental health)
While she is there she is not offered pain relief for the fetus even though there is some scientific evidence that the baby will feel pain.
I think that if we can allow an exception for mental health without scientific evidence of benefit, then we should offer pain relief based on some evidence that it does exist.
I know many believe that she may somehow get a mental health benefit even though the evidence is lacking.
However, I would add that belief is the realm of religion, not science.
"I think that if we can allow an exception for mental health without scientific evidence of benefit, then we should offer pain relief based on some evidence that it does exist."
Yes Hippie, I agree...any sane, reasonable person would agree. I'm interested to see what the pro-aborts think about this.
Posted by: jasper at October 15, 2007 10:42 AMI wonder if Hal will avoid this video too.
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 11:01 AMThere argument for the presence or absence of pain has nothing whatsoever to do with pain! If the baby feels pain during an abortion than that makes the baby more "human" to people and weakens the pro-abort argument that it is just an embryo/zygote/collection of cells or whatever their latest euphemism happens to be. If the baby feels pain and mothers are given an option of pain reliever for the baby while it is being ripped apart that makes the baby more human to them as well which makes them think twice and possibly find another way of dealing with the situation, like actually carrying to term, which means that PP loses out on money. If they can force people to believe that the baby doesn't feel itself being ripped limb from limb and that the movement away from the source of the "pain" is random and not instinctive then they can also keep them believing that they aren't killing a human being and they have won. So, really, it's not about whether the child feels pain. It's about the Joe Q. Publics understanding of what the baby experiences during an abortion that is important here.
Since the tree analogy didn't go over so well how about this.
A parapalegic has no feeling in his extremities. Does this then make it acceptable to do surgery on him without any kind of anesthegia? Does this than make it acceptable to rip off his arms and legs just b/c they are extraneous and he seems to be extraneous b/c of course what kind of life can he live being confined to a wheelchair?
sam, good point!
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 11:13 AMWhy do pro aborts think that everything we post is fake? I just don't get it. Anything to avoid the truth, I guess. I can tell you that the ultrasound is an actual ultrasound of a pregnancy. How? I've had a few of them! That's what it looks like! Mine didn't look any different.Now, I don't know about anybody else, but I saw a baby. I saw something in the uterine cavity, and it pulled the baby apart. The baby disappeared, peice by peice. Ah, Dr. Nathanson was an abortionist. How would you have prefered him to describe it? We have even put up a video of a lady, spread eagle, with an actual abortion in progress. What more do you want?
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 11:22 AMHeather;
I have seen explosions on movies and people ripped apart. it all looked exactly like a real explosion, and real death.... but it wasnt.
arent computers amazing?
Sam; According to the RN i ask, when they operate on a paraplegics legs, he is usually under sedation, not to avoid physical trauma but mental trauma. Imagine knowing how bad something should hurt, but not feeling it at all.
Jon, what do you think an abortion would look like?
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 11:35 AMJon, Is "Life In the ER" fake as well?
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 11:36 AMHonestly couldnt tell you. being a man and all, i cant have one, and my wife would never have one. so i dont know.
my point is, that if i DID know, i could make a video like that one. i DO know what it looks like when a bomb goes off, and what it looks like when people die. and modern movies are VERY realistic.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 15, 2007 11:37 AMHeather, i dont know what the show is.... so i cant tell you.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 15, 2007 11:41 AMFetal pain is a periphery issue. If you anesthetized me before ripping off my limbs, you'd still be a murderer.
Whether a first trimester baby feels pain is irrelevant to the fact that he/she is killed by an abortion.
It may make those who kill their own children feel better to think that their babies didn't feel pain during the abortion- but they are were still killed.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 15, 2007 11:58 AMHippie and MK,
I totally agree with you. I just watched this for the first time and I was literally sick to my stomach. For what I had done and for what I just saw done.
Semantics, semantics, semantics. I don't care if that child felt pain or not. It was alive in there one moment and without a head the next. I truly don't know how anyone can look at that video and not be disgusted.
I know if I had seen just the footage of the woman having an abortion with her shaking and the blood and the doctor shoving those things in her, I would never have had an abortion. But, obviously, seeing the baby (at 2 1/2 inches) ripped from his mother was so much worse.
I am sick today. And so very, very sad.
Jacqueline,
Awesome point!!
BTW, I was anon.
Posted by: rosie at October 15, 2007 1:07 PMfresa, I really feel bad for you. Have you ever sought help?
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 3:54 PMMK,
Good point. If someone tore a newborn puppy (eyes still closed) apart they would certainly be jailed for animal abuse. A story recenctly unfolded where I live that profiled a guy who's dog delivered I think 10 puppies. He was caught breaking their necks one by one and throwing them in a dumpster. I'm sure he did it quick so it was painless for the pups.
How do you PCers feel about that? Should he have been jailed?
I can't wait to hear your answers.
Posted by: Sandy at October 15, 2007 4:01 PMSandy, hi! I can tell you of one sickening thing. My state punishes animal abusers worse than they do baby killers. Both should be punished, but why is animal cruelty worse than killing a newborn?
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 4:19 PMHi Heather!
Our society has been so brain washed into devaluing human life. My friend in jr. high had a dog which was never fixed. I found out her dad would take the newborn puppies put them in a gunny sack and take them to the river and throw them in. I wonder what type of sentence he would have gotten if someone turned him in.
Another friend I had in college lived on a farm. Her dad used to take all of the kittens born to the "barn cats" and put them in a gunny sack and tie it to the back of the exhast pipe from one of their trucks.
I wonder what type of trouble he would be in today if someone found out what he was doing.
Laura,
I think you should lobby to be present at an abortion. Ask for the abortionist to pull nearly viable (but still young enough to be aborted)baby from the womb and then have him tear it apart limb from limb while you are watching. Since you are such a staunch supporter of this type of murder, why not experience it for real? You seem to talk such a good game.
Sandy, I'll just bet that Laura isn't tolerant of any sort of animal abuse.
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 4:54 PMPain management should be taken into consideration in dealing as humanely as is reasonably possible with any health issue, but the premeditated, deliberate taking of an innocent human life AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT is MURDER, whether or not the law acknowledges it or not, whether or not the victim can feel pain, and should not be legal.
The abortion cartel and their supporters couldn't care less about any pain they don't feel themselves. So what if you prove beyond dispute that an 8-week child feels pain? They don't care; they will go right on killing as many as possible because they are about shedding innocent blood, making money, etc., and making up any excuse to justify their continued slaughter of innocent little boys and girls, and exploitation and reckless endangerment of their mothers. It's just who they are. Lying, calloused, self-obsessed, self-serving, hatemongering, manipulative, murdering SCUM.
Nobody in the prodeath movement gives a rip about pain; it's just a useful tool to manipulate public opinion in their favor.
Here it is in their own words:
"The authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death." Adolf Hitler
If we can get people to accept the removal of treatment and care especially the removal of food and fluids they will see what a painful way this is to die, and then, in the patients best interest, they will accept the lethal injection. pro-death advocate Helga Kuhse during the Fifth biennial Congress of Societies for the Right to Die in September, 1984. Inside quotation marks mine.
Note that both these statements advocating more death FOR OTHERS were made by people still alive...as are most such statements.
Posted by: just thinking (as opposed to unjust thinking) at October 15, 2007 5:07 PMHeather:
No, I have never sought help, I don't really know what a therapist could do or say to make me feel better (no disrespect meant, I am a social worker). I know what I did, I know it was wrong, and I am trying to live a better life now.
Contrary to what it would seem like by my posts, I am not walking around sulking and depressed. It does make me sad to revisit the abortion, but prior to the PP opening down the street, I didn't spend a lot of time dwelling on it.
But I believe in honesty and hope that just one woman will think twice about having an abortion after hearing my story. That is part of my healing.
fresa, thanks. It's understandable.
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 6:21 PMfresa, we are glad to have you on our side! You can be a great voice too.
Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 7:18 PMI think offering pain relief is appropriate if there is some possibility of pain.
Hippie, agreed, fine by me. And you're right there is much we still don't know.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 15, 2007 8:07 PMI still wonder what anyone thinks of the exception for an abortion based on the mother's psychological health when there is not evidence of benefit to psychological health.
Hippie, a given woman may know full well that ending the pregnancy is the best thing for her. The vast majority of studies show a positive outcome for having abortions.
In cases where the woman ends up regretting the abortion on balance and/or feeling "bad" it's normal for her to have had emotional problems beforehand. I can post the results again, but it makes sense that while there are those who may be at increased risk for psychological problems, there are also those that are not, and who simply are making their best choice.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 15, 2007 8:14 PMSam: A parapalegic has no feeling in his extremities. Does this then make it acceptable to do surgery on him without any kind of anesthegia?
I don't see why not. Let the doc decide.
......
Does this than make it acceptable to rip off his arms and legs just b/c they are extraneous and he seems to be extraneous b/c of course what kind of life can he live being confined to a wheelchair?
Nope.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 15, 2007 8:17 PMI'm not sure who those "proabort," people you speak of are, or if in fact they exist at all. I've never met one.
However, I'm willing to weigh in as a someone who is pro-CHOICE if that will do.
(A) There is NO PAIN felt by the fetus until likely well over 20 weeks (more like 26ish). Debating something that is scientific fact is basically a waste of time and energy. Fetal development is an area that is well studied. As most of you can likely appreciate, life-saving surgeries are now performed in utero on fetuses well into 20 weeks WITHOUT PAIN MEDICATIONS. Ditto with the cleft surgeries and other more life enhancing operations. Why? See above comment regarding the knowledge of fetal brain development.
(B) I'm not sure how or why a comparison was made to abortion and murdering full-term puppies (or ripping their eyes out or somesuch nonsense) but there really is NO comparison. First off, we are talking unborn vs. born and if you really want to go the PETA route, oftentimes animals which are spayed are ALSO pregnant at the time, ending in the abortion of whatever fetuses they are carrying.
(C) Mutilating handicapped people isn't even in the same REALM as abortion. Do you guys really fall off the deep end so often and so easily?
(D) It's pretty amazing to me that supposed "pro-life" doctors perform what they feel is "murder" in order to prove a point. More so, I'm impressed (and disgusted) that they seem to be able to film all of these tiny body parts relatively whole as they do it. I miscarried a baby at 14 weeks and found nothing but clots and blood.
Which actually brings me to the blood part. In all of abortion videos there seems to be a great deal of blood...and yet absolutely no concern for the woman having the abortion. No, they are simply close range shots of vulvas and opened cervixes.
As for people who abort at 24 weeks...the misconception being touted here is that due to emotional stress a woman would be able to seek and have an abortion that late along. That is a complete fallacy. Abortions are NOT performed that late unless there are serious reasons for doing so.
Posted by: Mobius at October 15, 2007 11:09 PMRegardless of the advanced technologies being made in the field of fetology, whether it be 4D ultrasound, or proof of fetal pain, the feminists and the abortion INDUSTRY will come up with ways to discredit all of it in the name of being an attempt to outlaw abortion and to protect womens rights. They will always have pro-abortion "experts" deny what they don't want women to know.
It's all about money anyway and no concern for women at all. They all suddenly disappear when women die as a result of botched LEGAL abortions, or when overwhelming evidence of the true nature of the industry is exposed...and every day, more and more of it is being exposed.
Gee...is it any WONDER why there are fewer and fewer doctors doing abortions? Their dirty secrets are all being told, and they can't face the truth.
Posted by: Mike at October 16, 2007 1:22 AMMobius,
As for people who abort at 24 weeks...the misconception being touted here is that due to emotional stress a woman would be able to seek and have an abortion that late along. That is a complete fallacy. Abortions are NOT performed that late unless there are serious reasons for doing so.
You're wrong about that...Just as Mr. Tiller.
Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 6:24 AMSo we fake abortion pictures and videos?
Why?
Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 6:24 AMMK, I'm actually NOT wrong about it. There are quite severe restrictions on abortions past 24 weeks and they are (in comparison to first trimester abortions) rarely performed. Even when the mother's life is at risk. That's not only a statistical fact, but something I went through personally.
If you want to disagree on ideology, that's fine. Yet you and I likely do not even diverge in that area. I haven't had an abortion, and I wouldn't, even when my own medical team tried to convince me otherwise at every step when I was pregnant with my second child. Which they had every right to do, as in my case to carry that pregnancy was a continuous significant risk to my life.
But you see, that was MY choice. Choice is a two way street and I am very thankful for that.
Yet, unlike you, I will always staunchly protect a woman's right to make her own decision. Regardless of horrific video clips and debates over religious beliefs. It's not for me to impose my own belief system and feelings upon another. I'm a very spiritual person, although not a Christian. I don't have every answer regarding God...none of us do, but I'm pretty certain that I'm NOT God.
Perhaps a more productive conversation would be how do we ensure that women of all socioeconomic classes are given the information and availability of contraception they need in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies? Certainly the current abstinence policies have been shown to be completely ineffective in stopping unwanted pregnancies, especially amongst the very young and the very poor.
In addition, it seems ridiculous to me that *all* of the responsibility for birth control generally sits on the shoulders of women, women who some later judge quite harshly should they decide to terminate a pregnancy. When you hold men accountable for their own actions (or inactions) when posters on these pages start demanding those men to be jailed, or stand outside of places they may congregate and call them whores etc., well then perhaps your endeavor won't seem quite as misogynistic as it currently does.
Women in this country and in others have died horrific deaths in their attempts to abort illegally. Now you can certainly toss cases of women who *do* abort frequently, just as we can attack welfare because a very miniscule minority of women do have multiple births with the thought that the government will provide for them. No system is perfect. However, the women who die in these tragedies are oftentimes either very young, or mothers themselves unable to care for yet another child. They make their own choices...and those choices are not mine to make for them. Or yours.
I do have a question though, for anyone who would care to answer. Since those in this forum seem so protective of the unborn, what are you folks thinking and doing about the current S-CHIP veto fiasco?
I pettitioned and marched, and hope it helps. I can't imagine that such a Pro-Life President is willing to stand by and watch an entire group of children denied basic medical care.
I think the veto was good, because the bill would expand CHIP too much to people who don't need the help from the government. What I would really like to see is a functional bill (not pie-in-the-sky) addressing American's needs to separate health insurance from employment. (And NOT Hillarycare, Romneycare, et. al.)
Posted by: Milehimama at October 17, 2007 7:14 AMPer Mobius:
It's not for me to impose my own belief system and feelings upon another.
OK, so do you agree with genital mutilation of women? Do you agree with China's abortion policy? Do you agree with stoning a woman to death for being raped? Do you agree with a woman being stoned to death for having an affair outside of marriage?
These are all belief systems. I guess you think all of these are ok too.
You need to do your homework on the S-CHIP program and quit listening to the MSM and the politacals out to stomp over Bush at every turn. President Bush vetoed it becuase it was too expansive. It is a close step to socialized medicine.
@ Mobius,
I think Sandy just really got started. ALL law is an imposition on choice... from child abuse, rape ... even crossing-on-a-red-light; etc .... impose a restriction on would-be perpetrators. Laws can also be perceived as guidance. For many (if not most PC'ers) laws pertaining to abortion are restrictions ... aka Doug's line ::: 'to not hamper the freedoms that a woman enjoys.' Most PL'ers see the very same laws as guidance to be more human ... and in the case of Roe vs Wade (a bad law); as guidance into license ... not at all a good place. I think you like (or, do you?) the freedoms gained via legal restrictions and abhor caprice ... even fully intentioned wrongheadedness.
Posted by: John McDonell at October 17, 2007 1:30 PM
У ипотечного кредитования есть очень важное преимущество: оно позволяет в короткие сроки решить насущный жилищный вопрос, купить квартиру или дом. Вы еще не рассчитались до конца за свое новое место жительства, но уже можете праздновать в нем новоселье, дни рождения, вечеринки, создавать семью и т.д. и т.п. Просто каждый месяц необходимо отдавать часть своих доходов на погашение кредита. Причем с каждым месяцем эта сумма может быть все меньше и меньше.
Ипотечное кредитование
Hi
Bye
You can make new friends, find the hottest singles.
Join today and make a hot new connection tonight
Posted by: gutmoneycom at October 17, 2007 9:42 PM
"What I would really like to see is a functional bill (not pie-in-the-sky) addressing American's needs to separate health insurance from employment."
Agree. The problem though would be that *most* people cannot afford individual or small group health insurance rates. The entire system needs to be reworked from the bottom up, and in the meantime, CHIP is all that is actually available to the children of lower and moderate income working class.
Sandy I would reply, but it's too obvious that not only are you incoherent but illiterate too. I can't even make heads or tails about what your rant concerns. Perhaps you should actually try reading my response before replying to it.
BTW, in my mind forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child is no different than clidoridectomy and all forms of FGM. It's all imposing the BELIEF SYSTEMS of someone else upon the woman in question.
You just argued my side of the argument, thanks.
Posted by: Mobius at October 17, 2007 10:06 PM@Mobius,
Strange attacks directed at Sandy! YOU, I'm afraid are the ignorant/silly one, if you do not understand Sandy's post! A laissez-faire attitude to abortion restriction IS philosophically attempting to spread ignorance, not tolerance. [And I did read your post ... while there is little doubt that you are clever and have much education, you lack even a small amount of wisdom ... I pity your patients!]
Posted by: Anonymous at October 18, 2007 8:21 AM"A laissez-faire attitude to abortion restriction IS philosophically attempting to spread ignorance, not tolerance."
Actually, that's your opinion, not a fact. As I was trying to convey in my post there comes a time when fact does need to be parsed out from fiction, or any personal or subgroup schemata.
You can *feel* that supporting choice is philosophically spreading ignorance. Feeling are valid and, of course, important. However when you try to impose your belief system upon others it loses that validity and instead becomes oppressive.
For the most part, those who are pro-choice do not impose their belief systems upon others and we allow each individual woman to make her own decision.
I notice that no one over here bothered to reply to my questioning a man's responsibility in any of this, nor did anyone comment regarding the need for available contraception.
Interesting.
As interesting is something I read in another blog recently that questioned the Truism of Pro-Life stance when rates of allowable miscarriage range from estimates of 20% to upwards of 80% in the first trimester. Most of which are systematically ignored by the medical profession as the women are told "these things just happen," "it's nature's selection," and "try again." Where is your moral outrage at this? For certainly if, as you claim, human life begins at conception than this long ignored "non-issue," should be an enormous issue to you. No?
In addition, I'm rather horrified at the S-CHIP detractors on this board. So we must protect the unborn more than the born?
Posted by: Mobius at October 18, 2007 10:49 PMMobius: In addition, it seems ridiculous to me that *all* of the responsibility for birth control generally sits on the shoulders of women, women who some later judge quite harshly should they decide to terminate a pregnancy. When you hold men accountable for their own actions (or inactions) when posters on these pages start demanding those men to be jailed, or stand outside of places they may congregate and call them whores etc., well then perhaps your endeavor won't seem quite as misogynistic as it currently does.
Mobius, great posts from you.
I imagine that many pro-lifers don't think much of men who would favor women having abortions after the men didn't use birth control. Yet the bottom-line decision is the woman's and the "responsibility" is hers, and it's to what she wants, not to what the man wants (beyond where she's agreeable to it) and not to what pro-lifers want, either.
Even if it's subconsciously, I think pro-lifers realize this, and thus look to the woman in the matter.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2007 8:33 AM
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.