My column today on WND.com, "Hush, little fetus," skims through the evolution of fetal pain research.
Back in the Ice Age of this sort of research, 1987, work was published in the New England Journal of Medicine , with 201 sources, by Harvard Medical School and Boston Children's Hospital corroborating that fetuses and preemies felt pain.
During the Stone Age of fetal pain research, 2000, a researcher in Neonatal Network , citing several other reputable sources, wrote of all the negative physiological and behavior responses to painful stimuli.
But in 2005, the Age of Enlightenment, abortion profiteering researches have introduced the Instant Big Pain Bang Theory, which states that nervous systems of humans only begin functioning upon delivery.
We've come a long way, fetus.
Thanks for writing about this topic and pointing
out the contradictions. I'm a mother of eight children, and I find it bizarre that anyone who has been a mother, or even known a mother, can believe that unborn babies don't feel pain or have sensitivity to stimulation. I can remember some of my babies at various stages (I won't call them fetuses) responding to loud noises by jumping in the womb. One was startled by a loud buzzer where I worked, and jumped quite violently.
Years ago, there was a video made called, "The Silent Scream." I have never seen this video, because I already believe that babies suffer during abortion, but I understand that it proves the point. In all the current debate about "fetal pain," this video hasn't been mentioned.
Anyway, denial seems to work for pro-abortion
activists and politicians. But I have always told my children that just saying something that isn't true because you want it to be true doesn't make it so.
Atta girl, Jill.
Our counter attack on junk science must first of all label it as junk science because fetal pain during abortion is not a new issue. The overwhelming bulk of previous studies affirm 10th to 12th week development of neural responses in any baby.
Second, it ought to immediately raise our hackles if that bulk of studies is contradicted, not by new research, but by a "survey article" which purports to reverse all previous real clinical and sonogrphic evidence.
That such a preposterous claim should appear in the AMA Journal should also be a citation in pointing out how the AMA has descended to junk journal status.
The precedent is the National Geographic October 2002 Issue that breathlessly reported in a cover story a Chinese find of an "intermediate specie". By November they retracted the story as another evolutionary fraud due to conclusive DNA refutation.
It is sad to see previously respected names dragged through the mud by the frightened politically correct. They are so easy to refute.Posted by: John at August 31, 2005 11:41 PM