Pro-life blog buzz 6-18-13
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Secular Pro-Life discusses the vote this week on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and gives analysis of some of the concerns/objections to this legislation from pro-life activists.
- Tennessee GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn (pictured left) has an op-ed in Politico on the House’s legislation, which seeks to ban abortion past 20 weeks:
A vote in favor is a vote for human decency and public health safety. A vote against is simply indefensible. Our bipartisan proposal doesn’t stop all abortions as Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed last week. Will other Democrats join me in protecting women and children who feel pain or will they be on Pelosi’s side protecting Gosnell-like, late-term abortions as sacred ground? - Clinic Quotes points out how the abortion industry knowingly lies about fetal pain. Former clinic worker Amy states, “The hardest question you get asked is ‘does the baby feel pain?’ We had to lie to them or say we don’t know.”
- At Life Site News, John Jansen discusses the failure of emergency contraception in decreasing the “need” for abortion – even according the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute:
Despite the fact that there has been a huge increase in the number of women who have used EC over the last decade, even the Guttmacher Institute admits that “there’s no evidence” that EC has lowered the overall national rate of unintended pregnancy. In moments of honesty, even the biggest cheerleaders for EC will admit that the best that can be said of it is that it’s “better than nothing.”Increased availability of EC hasn’t made a dent in the U.S. abortion rate, either. (And the U.S. isn’t alone. Consider this recent headline: “Abortion on rise in Sweden despite higher sales of morning-after pill.”) In this vein, it’s especially instructive to take a look at Planned Parenthood’s own figures.
- Our new blog addition, A Culture of Life, tells the story of one mother in New Zealand who stood courageously for her child against those who told her to abort because of a poor prenatal diagnosis:
But at 32 weeks baby Ava was born. She had none of the anomalies diagnosed prior to birth, although she did have a horseshoe kidney, something the scans didn’t pick up. Because Ava was eight weeks premature, she spent time in NICU, but she was strong and was able to go home after two weeks.At a time when prenatal screening is routine, this story (and the countless more that are similar), should serve as a warning for medical professionals, for parents and for families. All too often, a prenatal diagnosis of an impairment, disability or life-limiting condition ends in abortion. Often this is because of pressure from the medical experts, from a lack of information about the conditions and a fear of the unknown.
But Baby Ava’s story shows that sometimes doctors get it wrong. And even if they don’t get it wrong, why is the answer abortion?
- Down on the Pharm wonders if anyone in Catholic Church leadership is willing to stand up and address the Nancy Pelosis of the church who designate abortion and infanticide as “sacred ground,” citing their Catholic “faith” as a reason for their support.
- At Live Action News, Rebecca Downs documents another instance why Girl Scouts USA can no longer claim “neutrality” on the issue of abortion:
While the Girl Scouts claims to not take a position on abortion, on May 9, 2013, MAKERS, a feminist, pro-abortion video of women whose “pioneering contributions” have apparently changed America, was screened as a Girl Scout-sponsored event.The video came with a warning to parents, stating:
Parents need to know that Makers: Women Who Make America discusses potentially sensitive issues like abortion, birth control pills, domestic violence, and rape as they relate to the women’s movement beginning in the 1950s through today. Most of these topics are talked about, not visualized, though there are a handful of blurred images – one of a women who died after an illegal abortion and another of an image of a naked woman. There is also some discussion of how the lesbian movement fit in (and diverged from) the mainstream feminist movement.One of the promoters of the video is MAKERS Board member Amy Richards, “a co-founder of Third Wave Foundation, a pro-abortion group; an adviser to Planned Parenthood NYC” who recently posted a video casually discussing her own selective reduction abortions.
Many churches are still hosting GSUSA. We cannot just stop buying cookies; we must not allow them access to our daughters.
- Americans United for Life shares video of Dr. Charmaine Yoest on a guest panel of four women on MSNBC. Naturally, Yoest is the sole representative of the pro-life view, and as always, defends it well, pointing out the extremism of the abortion lobby:
[Photos via sema.org, A Culture of Life, and protectamerica.com]
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.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest is probably one of the best spokespeople the pro-life movement has right now. I really admire her ability to handle herself in hostile situations, i.e. being on MSNDNC.
I don’t understand why it’s such a big hoopla to lower abortion limit to 20 weeks! It only makes sense, as after that babies become viable, how can you not see a hypocrisy of premature baby being saved by doctors when another baby at the exact same age is being intentionally killed??? They either both deserve to live, or not. Besides, american liberals should stop being such wussies – in my native Lithuania the limit is 12 weeks and noone sees that as a problem, apparently 3 months is enough to figure out that you’re pregnant… And there’s a bill going through parliament at the moment to ban abortions altogether. Good riddance, I would say.
I like Congresswoman Blackburn already.
I hope if she is ever asked about whether she is for exceptions or not she will simply say either: “How is that relevant now?” and/or “I am not for ‘exceptions’ because I know Rebecca and Ryan.”
Most people don’t know that people like Ryan and Rebecca exist. Let’s put a face on the “exceptions.”
“And there’s a bill going through parliament at the moment to ban abortions altogether”
Excellent, I really hope it passes for the sake of all preborn Lithuanians.
I have serious doubts about the veracity of the claim of fetal pain at 20 weeks.
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
http://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/Government%20Relations%20and%20Outreach/20120618DCAborStmnt.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20120915T2120559712
I don’t think the legislation will get through anyway.
Reality if it were definitively proven that a fetus could feel pain 20 weeks and on, would you at least support requirements for pain reduction such as sedation or whatever for the unborn who are going to be aborted?
“Down on the Pharm wonders if anyone in Catholic Church leadership is willing to stand up and address the Nancy Pelosis of the church who designate abortion and infanticide as “sacred ground,” citing their Catholic “faith” as a reason for their support.”
Not a chance in hell.
Response to Reality:
http://fn.bmj.com/content/96/4/F236.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20654261
http://nrlc.org/news/2010/NRL0809/Ranalli.html
Jasper, I recently came across an article in LSN that indicated that there are a number of Bishops who have stood up to Nancy Pelosi.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2008/aug/08082805
Unfortunately they don’t get the same media coverage.
That sounds like a reasonable proposition on the face of it Jack.
Thank you Maureen. Some interesting information amongst those links.
In regard to the first link – it is unusual to find 100% consensus in any field of science. I think the level of consensus amongst the RCOG carries more weight than the divergent perspective of one person.
In the case of the second link, I didn’t find anything which clarified any specific number of weeks. Certainly not 20.
The third link takes us to a piece on an anti-choice website by the anti-choice neuro-ophthalmologist Dr. Paul Ranalli. The article contains some spurious correlations, A = B therefore B = C. It questions the conclusions drawn from the evidence by the DCOG. It is dated June 2010. The statement by the multi-person ACOG rebutting the 20 week assertion is dated June 2012.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that a significant consensus of people qualified in the field concur that fetal pain begins to occur from 24 weeks onwards.
Another simple solution for the cowardly GOP – wear friggin buttons with pictures of Ryan’s and Rebecca’s face on them and that says in bold block letters: “I AM FOR PEOPLE NOT EXCEPTIONS.”
I know, I know, my suggestions sound silly, simplistic, and naďve. But guess what, the other side (and advertising companies) do this crap all the time. GOP how much air time do you think the prolife message gets? The best thing the GOP can do is to direct difficult questions to the people who can answer them the best. Stop trying to do everything yourself – and start using your teammates.
For all the GOP who aren’t prolife – the GOP brass should tell them that they are confused. The GOP is for limited government and not for killing The People.
And so it is clear my above point has nothing to do with Trent Franks. I think he was unfairly criticized by the media. Other GOP members should still look to him to lead on prolife issues.
Human life is worth protecting well before the age of latest consensus according to scientists theorizing about some arbitrary level of pain that is sensible to a child who is being dismembered.
20 weeks gestation is the current point at which modern technology can save the life of a child delivered prematurely. We know these children react to pain other stimuli.
There is NO REASON to oppose the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
The fact that you aren’t going to get everything you want doesn’t mean you don’t at least try to get SOMETHING. If the unborn are being tortured to death because they are dismembered or burned after the central nervous system has been hooked up, this must stop immediately.
Hi Reality:
Response to your response to my response:
1.) I think the level of consensus amongst the RCOG carries more weight than the divergent perspective of one person.
There are many studies supporting the position that fetuses feel pain. I just did a quick search and found this one . In fact, most researchers do NOT agree with the conclusion of the RCOG – pls. check this yourself.
2.)In the case of the second link, I didn’t find anything which clarified any specific number of weeks. Certainly not 20.
From the second study:
“Stress responses to a painful stimulation are complex but they can be detected from the 16th week on.”
Acta Med Port. 2010 May-Jun;23(3):419-26. Epub 2010 Jun 14
3.) The third link takes us to a piece on an anti-choice website by the anti-choice neuro-ophthalmologist Dr. Paul Ranalli.
This paper [http://nrlc.org/news/2010/NRL0809/Ranalli.html] is well-documented with EVIDENCE not conjecture. If you are going to deny the science based on the opinion of the author(s) then you need to disregard every position paper regarding abortion put out by the RCOG and ACOG.
RCOG and ACOG are rabidly pro-abortion. They are not unbiased sources “above the fray” so to speak. They are professional organizations designed to promote their professions. (You should see the utter nonsense they have written in the past about midwives, for example.) Abortion is a great boon to their profession, giving them both an income stream and expanding their power greatly.
4.) It questions the conclusions drawn from the evidence by the DCOG. It is dated June 2010. The statement by the multi-person ACOG rebutting the 20 week assertion is dated June 2012.
(I’m guessing that “DCOG” is a typo – I think you mean “RCOG” but please correct me if I am wrong about this.)
The date of the latest research cited in the ROCG report, dated June 2010, is 2009.
The date of the latest research cited (regarding fetal pain) in the ACOG report, dated June 2012, is dated 2005.
My source if the more recent than both (May-June 2010).
5.) The RCOG report is based on the presumption that the fetus is in a permanent “unconscious” state – similar to a person undergoing anesthesia – and therefore cannot feel pain. This is patently ridiculous, refuted by many studies and even simple observation. RCOG states that the fetus’ obvious reaction to stimulus (painful and otherwise) is simply “reflex.” Of course, a person under the effects of anesthesia does not display “reflex” response to stimuli.
6.) One of my biggest problems with many of those who have a pro-abortion viewpoint is their complete inability to look at the scientific EVIDENCE (as seen during discussions of fetal development, etc.) while at the same time trying to diminish the views of pro-life people as being based on “religion.” In fact, it is the exact OPPOSITE – the pro-abortion position denies the scientific evidence in favor of opinion, conjecture, intimidation, and philosophical views of “personhood.”
Reality, are you in favor of restricting abortions when the unborn child feels pain? If so you should join us in getting Roe v. Wade overturned so the people can decide. Or do you support inflicting unimaginable pain on the unborn child?
Concerning the remarks from Guttmacher related to the failure of “emergency contraception”:
Most forms of contraception fail often enough that have begun to insist that “contraception doesn’t work.” We all know people who become pregnant while using contraception methods. This is why the rates of abortion have increased as the rates of contraception use have increased. This is why Planned Parenthood pushes contraception on MedicAid recipients so much — we are paying for it, and it’s good for their abortion business.
But are there any knowledgeable persons who truly believe that EC is effective at preventing pregnancy?
Or is it just an expensive placebo that encourages young people to indulge in riskier sex?
Don’t forget what Texas Representative Michael Burgess contends.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/18/rep_mike_burgess_of_texas_suggests_banning_abortion_because_fetuses_masturbate.html
Why isn’t this being discussed here?
DFTT
Don’t Feed The Troll
Odd. With the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the media narrative is all “derp derp derp War on Women! derp derp derp Culture Wars derp derp constitutional rights derp derp derp This has no hope of getting through the Senate derp derp WHERE ARE THE JOB BILLS?”. With the assault weapon bill, the narrative was that Obama is a hero bravely standing up to the big, bad NRA, those evil obstructionist Republicans ought to be ashamed for betraying innocent children, and the bill is worth it if it saves even one life.
Merit says:
June 19, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Don’t forget what Texas Representative Michael Burgess contends. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/18/rep_mike_burgess_of_texas_suggests_banning_abortion_because_fetuses_masturbate.htmlWhy isn’t this being discussed here?
Okay…. Let’s discuss it.
The Congressman is a licensed gynecologist and obstetrician. He testifies that children in the womb are observed seeking sensory experiences, such as grasping the genitals. This is evidence that the children can feel other sensory data — like PAIN — without having to torture children in the womb. (a video of an ultrasound-guided abortion would be even more effective, as Abby Johnson testifies.)
The writer at Slate makes three conclusions from this:
1) The doctor is stoopid, and makes up stuff as he goes.
2) We need abortion, because poor women don’t deserve to have children that they cannot afford.
3) We need late term abortion, because children with defects need to be executed immediately.
From this, we can conclude that the Slate writer is an new-fashioned eugenicist who does not let facts or science interfere with her ideology.
Citing Amanda Marcotte? Really?
Confession: I didn’t bother to look at the name of the Slate writer, assuming that it would not be anyone I had heard of.
So… it is Amanda again. She loves abortion for its own sake, and she only loves abortion. She hates children, she hates women for having children, and she hates science for all of that evidence that children are indeed fully human.
Amanda is always good for the first spin on how to ignore the evidence.
@ Del: A family allowance or guaranteed annual income should be enacted. “We can’t afford another baby” would be dropped as family income would automatically increase with a newcomer.
“DFTT
Don’t Feed The Troll”
Generally, I say that this is the best advice ever. However, when it involves a chance to insult Amanda Marcotte, I feel the rules can be bent a bit. :)
Very well then.
LOL
Sigh…. I really need to pay more attention to the authors of comments.
When Amanda writes the dumb… I should consider the source and respond accordingly.
And when Carla says “DFTT”…. I should be obedient and avoid posting!
It took me way longer then I like to admit to figure out what DFTT meant, I didn’t see Carla explain it. . I think I’m a little slow lol.
LOL
Sorry Jack. :)
It is just a helpful suggestion.
:)
DeniseNoe says:
June 19, 2013 at 2:37 pm
@ Del: A family allowance or guaranteed annual income should be enacted. “We can’t afford another baby” would be dropped as family income would automatically increase with a newcomer.
I agree, but I do not have a solution to the pesky problem of where that money would come from.
I know that the idea of a “living wage” is a young one: It is as old as the industrial revolution and wage-slavery. It was the factory and sweat-shop owners who were the first enthusiasts for contraception (against the universal Christian faith of the time). Fewer children meant that a family man could be paid less. There was no thought about future generations of workers — There would always be too many Irish immigrants, anyway.
As to the problem of poverty in our current age: We do need to work on that. The current Welfare State is the poverty-free utopia that it promised to be. All we know is that Jesus promised that we would always have the poor with us (and that was hardly an astounding prophecy). We know that children do not cause poverty, and abortion does not cure poverty. We need to protect the poor women and children from the likes of Amanda Marcotte.
Hello again Maureen :-)
1.) “There are many studies supporting the position that fetuses feel pain.” – indeed, but how many support the 20 week claim?
“I just did a quick search and found this one” – fair enough.
“In fact, most researchers do NOT agree with the conclusion of the RCOG – pls. check this yourself.” – um, you’re making the claim, you need to substantiate it. I would conclude that since the RCOG and the ACOG both say ‘no’ then what you claim may well not be the case.
2.) “Stress responses to a painful stimulation are complex but they can be detected from the 16th week on.” – that is not saying that fetuses feel pain from 20 weeks.
3.) “This paper…..is well-documented with EVIDENCE not conjecture.” – the article is based on the RCOG piece. Ranalli is simply explaining his interpretation of the evidence that RCOG used.
“RCOG and ACOG are rabidly pro-abortion. They are not unbiased sources “above the fray” so to speak.” – you do have evidence for this of course?
“They are professional organizations designed to promote their professions.” – in part perhaps.
“Abortion is a great boon to their profession, giving them both an income stream and expanding their power greatly.” – I would have thought that continuing pregnancies would be more financially viable for obstetricians and gyno’s and endow them with more ‘power’ Can you explain why you think otherwise?
4.) “(I’m guessing that “DCOG” is a typo) – yes.
“My source if the more recent than both (May-June 2010).” – and is based on the research cited by those RCOG and ACOG reports. Therefore it provided nothing new.
5.) “The RCOG report is based on the presumption that the fetus is in a permanent “unconscious” state – similar to a person undergoing anesthesia – and therefore cannot feel pain. This is patently ridiculous,” – I’ll take RCOG’s word on that.
“refuted by many studies” – citations?
“and even simple observation” – seriously?
“RCOG states that the fetus’ obvious reaction to stimulus (painful and otherwise) is simply “reflex.” Of course, a person under the effects of anesthesia does not display “reflex” response to stimuli.” – and you would compare two such diverse states because? They said ‘similar’, not ‘exactly the same’.
6.) “One of my biggest problems with many of those who have a pro-abortion viewpoint is their complete inability to look at the scientific EVIDENCE” – that’s what I’m doing right here.
“while at the same time trying to diminish the views of pro-life people as being based on “religion.” – in certain cases, some of it is.
“In fact, it is the exact OPPOSITE – the pro-abortion position denies the scientific evidence in favor of opinion, conjecture, intimidation (???), and philosophical views of “personhood.” – so you have purely scientific evidence for ‘personhood’ do you?
Hi again Reality – boy this is going to get long.
1.) “There are many studies supporting the position that fetuses feel pain.” – indeed, but how many support the 20 week claim?
“I just did a quick search and found this one” – fair enough.
“In fact, most researchers do NOT agree with the conclusion of the RCOG – pls. check this yourself.” – um, you’re making the claim, you need to substantiate it. I would conclude that since the RCOG and the ACOG both say ‘no’ then what you claim may well not be the case.
Um, you are refuting my claim – you supply the evidence. But you can check this for yourself and see. Also the “working groups” of RCOG and ACOG interpret the research in a certain way to support their working group opinion – not every member agrees – not by a long shot.
2.“Stress responses to a painful stimulation are complex but they can be detected from the 16th week on.” – that is not saying that fetuses feel pain from 20 weeks.
Yes, it does. In fact it says that fetuses feel pain earlier than 20 weeks.
3.“This paper…..is well-documented with EVIDENCE not conjecture.” – the article is based on the RCOG piece. Ranalli is simply explaining his interpretation of the evidence that RCOG used.
In part he refers to the research cited but he backs up his claims with evidence and different research.
3.“Abortion is a great boon to their profession, giving them both an income stream and expanding their power greatly.” – I would have thought that continuing pregnancies would be more financially viable for obstetricians and gyno’s and endow them with more ‘power’ Can you explain why you think otherwise?
Abortion makes much more money than birth – it takes less time, which equals more $ per hour than birth, eliminates babies born with disabilities (which for some reason, doctors truly want to eliminate – no, doesn’t make sense from a purely cost analysis – but just ask any mother whose babies have been diagnosed in utero. This might have to do with lawsuits or simply a certain elitist mindset.). The public becomes accustomed to doctors having the authority to decide who lives and dies – this then translates to other areas of practice. (I always wondered why the pro-aborts say the choice should be between a woman and “her doctor.” Why not just for a woman why include “her doctor?”) Paternalistic, in my opinion, and supports the assertion that doctors very much want to be involved in abortion. Also, birth empowers women creating women who question doctors, abortion exploits and subjugates women allowing for more submissive patients.
5.“My source if the more recent than both (May-June 2010).” – and is based on the research cited by those RCOG and ACOG reports. Therefore it provided nothing new.
No its not based on the research cited by RCOG and ACOG and provides new research. I am referring to the second source and some of the third.
“The RCOG report is based on the presumption that the fetus is in a permanent “unconscious” state – similar to a person undergoing anesthesia – and therefore cannot feel pain. This is patently ridiculous,” – I’ll take RCOG’s word on that.
That is one of your problems – you choose to blindly follow instead of investigating for yourself.
“refuted by many studies” – citations? (gave you three – you can find more)
“and even simple observation” – seriously?
Absolutely! (“Who are you going to believe – me or your lying eyes” Hope you get this reference, if not I can explain in another response)
“RCOG states that the fetus’ obvious reaction to stimulus (painful and otherwise) is simply “reflex.” Of course, a person under the effects of anesthesia does not display “reflex” response to stimuli.” – and you would compare two such diverse states because? They said ‘similar’, not ‘exactly the same’.
Yes – read the paper – that is the basis for their conclusion.
6.“In fact, it is the exact OPPOSITE – the pro-abortion position denies the scientific evidence in favor of opinion, conjecture, intimidation (???), and philosophical views of “personhood.” – so you have purely scientific evidence for ‘personhood’ do you?
No, my evidence is that from a purely scientific viewpoint, it is clear that the zygote, embryo, fetus is a human being. Many pro-aborts refuse to acknowledge this scientific FACT.
My own OPINION is that all human beings have inherent worth and should be treated as such. Many pro-aborts are of the OPINION that unborn humans can be killed at will but instead of acknowledging that this is an opinion, they pretend that somehow scientific EVIDENCE supports their view – it does not.
Hello Maureen, I’ll try to tighten it up.
You claimed that “most researchers do NOT agree with the conclusion of the RCOG” and when I question the validity of your claim you state “Um, you are refuting my claim – you supply the evidence.” – seriously?
Try this then – 97.5% of members of the RCOG agree with the conclusion of the RCOG report. – if you wish to refute my claim, provide the evidence.
“Also the “working groups” of RCOG and ACOG interpret the research in a certain way to support their working group opinion” – were you at any of the meetings? Do you have a copy of the minutes?
“– not every member agrees – not by a long shot.” – 97.5% do agree.
“Stress responses to a painful stimulation are complex but they can be detected from the 16th week on.” …..it says that fetuses feel pain earlier than 20 weeks” – that is not what it says. It says there are responses to stimuli. They only confirm that the system for pain transmission is developed by 30 weeks.
“In part he refers to the research cited but he backs up his claims with evidence and different research.’ – no he doesn’t. He talks about the RCOG research. He claims Dr Anand says something which supports his viewpoint but provides no citations, references or links. He also names a couple of other doctors, one of whom he claims “has previously expressed a belief that fetal pain may be present as far back as 17 weeks.” Again, no citations, refrences or links. He provides no new evidence apart from his own opinion.
“Abortion makes much more money than birth – it takes less time, which equals more $ per hour than birth” – the course of gestation and delivery would generate more $ for the doctor than a single procedure.
“(I always wondered why the pro-aborts say the choice should be between a woman and “her doctor.” Why not just for a woman why include “her doctor?”)” – because a doctor can provide the knowledge which will assist the woman.
“Paternalistic, in my opinion” – I had a lady doctor for several years, she was rather good.
“supports the assertion that doctors very much want to be involved in abortion” – that’s not what I usually hear around here.
“abortion exploits and subjugates women allowing for more submissive patients” – no, it is the repression of womens rights and their reproductive choices which lead to exploitation and subjugation.
“No its not based on the research cited by RCOG and ACOG and provides new research.” – I have disproven this above.
“That is one of your problems – you choose to blindly follow instead of investigating for yourself.” – I don’t have any qualifications in obstetrics, gynecology or neurology so I investigate what the qualified and experienced experts and researchers in the fields have to say. How about you?
“gave you three” –discredited by the weight of evidence. “you can find more” – that would be your task. I doubt they exist.
“Absolutely!” – (I got the reference) can you please detail your observational experience of fetal responses to stimuli and why it outweighs the conclusions of numerous qualified experts in the field?
“Yes – read the paper – that is the basis for their conclusion.” – yes, ‘similar’ not ‘the same’.
I asked “so you have purely scientific evidence for ‘personhood’ do you?” to which you have replied “No” and then you state “my evidence is that from a purely scientific viewpoint, it is clear that the zygote, embryo, fetus is a human being.” I have stated more than once that a gestating human fetus is a member of the human species. But you have no evidence to claim ‘personhood’ for fetuses.
“they pretend that somehow scientific EVIDENCE supports their view – it does not.” – the scientific evidence demonstrates that a fetus does not possess the attributes required to confer ‘personhood’.
Naaaaah! Doesn’t hurt a bit. Just ask some of my friends that work in the NICU taking care of 1 and a half pound premies if ripping limbs off, “going after number 1” aka crushing their sculls, snipping spinal cords, disemboweling, injecting digoxin into a baby’s heart, mutilation via currette, and sucking out bodily parts with vacuum suction would hurt. I’m done feeding the troll. Sorry Carla I’m out of here. Good night.
How old are the premies your friends work with?
I’m assuming they don’t do any of the things you have described. Nor that they have qualifications in neurology. So they wouldn’t know.
“I’m done feeding the troll. Sorry Carla I’m out of here. Good night.” – odd, that sounds like something someone would say after a lengthy debate. ?
Hi again Reality:
Now we seem to be getting somewhere.
1.) You claimed that “most researchers do NOT agree with the conclusion of the RCOG” and when I question the validity of your claim you state “Um, you are refuting my claim – you supply the evidence.” – seriously?
Try this then – 97.5% of members of the RCOG agree with the conclusion of the RCOG report. – if you wish to refute my claim, provide the evidence.
Obviously you simply made up that figure. This is what many pro-aborts have been doing all along. Roe v. Wade was based upon a lie, testimony to Congress and others was based on lies according to former abortionists and your response here is a lie. Why can’t you use the evidence? Because it does not exist to support your claim. I did supply links – you have not.
“Also the “working groups” of RCOG and ACOG interpret the research in a certain way to support their working group opinion” – were you at any of the meetings? Do you have a copy of the minutes?
“– not every member agrees – not by a long shot.” – 97.5% do agree.
Again, your answer references your own lie – this spurious reasoning is frequently done by pro-aborts.
2. “Stress responses to a painful stimulation are complex but they can be detected from the 16th week on.” …..it says that fetuses feel pain earlier than 20 weeks” – that is not what it says. It says there are responses to stimuli. They only confirm that the system for pain transmission is developed by 30 weeks.
No, it says the systems are more developed by 30 weeks. “Responses to stimuli” are responses to pain and other sensations.
3.Again, no citations, references or links. He provides no new evidence apart from his own opinion.
He did not cite the actual research published in journals. I am quoting from the article and, again, found some quick links below. However, RCOG also is basing their recommendation on opinion and their interpretation of cherry-picked data – not an exhaustive or systematic review of the literature.
“Similarly?and quite strangely?the RCOG has minimized input from true fetal pain experts such as Dr. Anand and UK experts such as Drs. Nicholas Fisk and Vivette Glover. Dr. Glover has previously expressed a belief that fetal pain may be present as far back as 17 weeks? gestation. This is a rather important omission.”
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 Apr;153(4):331-8.
Pediatrics. 2005 Jun;115(6):1494-500.
Glover, V. and Fisk, N. M. (1999), Fetal pain: implications for research and practice. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 106: 881–886. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08424.x
4. “the course of gestation and delivery would generate more $ for the doctor than a single procedure.”
Not as measured by $ per hour.
“(I always wondered why the pro-aborts say the choice should be between a woman and “her doctor.” Why not just for a woman why include “her doctor?”)” – because a doctor can provide the knowledge which will assist the woman.
So can many other types of consultations, including details about fetal development, the details of the actual procedure, and, certainly, fetal ultrasounds – all of which have been deemed as oppressive and demeaning to women by many pro-aborts. Having the doctor who stands to benefit financially advise the woman about abortion seems more than a little self-serving.
“Paternalistic, in my opinion” – I had a lady doctor for several years, she was rather good.
Paternalistic is a characteristic, unfortunately, not only reserved to men. Much of the practice of medicine devoted to the medical needs of women is still rooted in sexist, and condescending attitudes toward women. “Let’s not bother the little lady with all these facts and figures.” See my response above.
“supports the assertion that doctors very much want to be involved in abortion” – that’s not what I usually hear around here.
“abortion exploits and subjugates women allowing for more submissive patients” – no, it is the repression of womens rights and their reproductive choices which lead to exploitation and subjugation.
Both of these responses are your opinion and I disagree, especially with your last conclusion. There is NOTHING freeing about abortion. It is the ultimate rejection of the female body. It is based on the fact that pregnancy is an abnormal “parasitic” relationship and that a woman’s body should be like a man’s. Talk to women who have undergone abortions and speak to women who have given birth – it is clear who is the more empowered.
“No its not based on the research cited by RCOG and ACOG and provides new research.” – I have disproven this above.
No you haven’t .
That is one of your problems – you choose to blindly follow instead of investigating for yourself.” – I don’t have any qualifications in obstetrics, gynecology or neurology so I investigate what the qualified and experienced experts and researchers in the fields have to say. How about you?
I have to question your assertion that you “investigate what the qualified and experienced experts and researchers in the fields have to say.” I do not see any evidence of this. It appears to me that you use pro-abortions talking points and do not truly investigate on your own.
“gave you three” –discredited by the weight of evidence. “you can find more” – that would be your task. I doubt they exist.
Not discredited and see my response above about your claim to “investigate” research.
“Absolutely!” – (I got the reference) can you please detail your observational experience of fetal responses to stimuli and why it outweighs the conclusions of numerous qualified experts in the field?
Was pregnant (mother of five), with all the resultant ultrasounds, tests, etc. as well as my own experiences – can you say the same? Also, have to question your conclusion that “numerous qualified experts in the field” agree with your opinion.
“Yes – read the paper – that is the basis for their conclusion.” – yes, ‘similar’ not ‘the same’.
Again, I do not believe that you actually read the paper. This is the basis for their belief (fantastic as that is).
But you have no evidence to claim ‘personhood’ for fetuses.
“they pretend that somehow scientific EVIDENCE supports their view – it does not.” – the scientific evidence demonstrates that a fetus does not possess the attributes required to confer ‘personhood’.
Let me copy my initial response:
“My own OPINION is that all human beings have inherent worth and should be treated as such. Many pro-aborts are of the OPINION that unborn humans can be killed at will but instead of acknowledging that this is an opinion, they pretend that somehow scientific EVIDENCE supports their view – it does not.”
I am not claiming scientific evidence for the “personhood” of the unborn child. Science does not define “personhood.” There is no scientific EVIDENCE to confer “personhood” or not. None. This is not the purview of science. Science DOES unequivocally demonstrate that a new member of the human race exists at the moment of fertilization. This is simply a fact. What we choose to do with this knowledge is subject to other considerations.
How sad it must be to believe, accept and embrace the idea that freedom hinges on killing other human beings. Think about all the pain Reality has inflicted upon himself with that view.
Well said Courtnay.
Pain upon himself/herself and others.
I believe “Reality” is a woman.
Obviously you simply made up that figure. – it was rectally derived, yes. As I must assume was your claim that “most researchers do NOT agree with the conclusion of the RCOG”, because when I asked for evidence you stated that it was up to me to disprove it. The same rule must apply to my claim, which I’m confident is more accurate than yours.
Why can’t you use the evidence? Because it does not exist to support your claim. –
who knows? We certainly haven’t seen any for yours.
I did supply links – you have not. – you supplied no links or evidence whatsoever to support your claim that “most researchers do NOT agree with the conclusion of the RCOG”.
Again, your answer references your own lie – that is a fundamentally baseless claim. You claimed that they “interpret the research in a certain way to support their working group opinion” without actually stating what that ‘working group opinion’ is or on what basis you allege it. Because you have no knowledge of any such thing, or evidence for it.
No, it says the systems are more developed by 30 weeks. – ‘more developed’, indicating they were not fully developed earlier.
“Responses to stimuli” are responses to pain and other sensations. – ‘response’ does not explicitly demonstrate ‘feeling pain’.
He did not cite the actual research published in journals. – well that’s obvious.
found some quick links below – both of which say absolutely zero about when fetal pain might begin.
However, RCOG also is basing their recommendation on opinion and their interpretation of cherry-picked data – not an exhaustive or systematic review of the literature. – this is an absolutely ludicrous claim based on nothing more than your dislike of the conclusions they drew from the research. You refuse to provide any evidence for it.
the RCOG has minimized input from true fetal pain experts such as Dr. Anand and UK experts such as Drs. Nicholas Fisk and Vivette Glover. – and your evidence is? Oh wait, you’ll expect me to find it won’t you. Hm, nup, doesn’t exist.
Dr. Glover has previously expressed a belief that fetal pain may be present as far back as 17 weeks – ‘previously’, ‘may’.
Not as measured by $ per hour. – the number of hours of consultation per patient would be more lucrative.
fetal ultrasounds – all of which have been deemed as oppressive – it’s not the ultrasound itself which is oppressive, it’s forcing them onto women when they don’t want them. I notice anti-choicers aren’t so keen when an ultrasound is used to detect fetal abnormalities.
Paternalistic is a characteristic, unfortunately, not only reserved to men. – yes…I’ve pointed this out myself in the past and been admonished for it.
Both of these responses are your opinion and I disagree – yet I keep being told, here, that doctors really, really don’t want to be in the abortion business.
It is the ultimate rejection of the female body. – well I disagree but it is of course subjective.
It is based on the fact that pregnancy is an abnormal “parasitic” relationship – no, that’s not the fact that it is based on
“and that a woman’s body should be like a man’s – what tosh.
Talk to women who have undergone abortions and speak to women who have given birth – it is clear who is the more empowered. – all the ones I have spoken to seem equally empowered. It’s about the ability to be able to make a choice.
No you haven’t – actually I did.
I have to question your assertion that you “investigate what the qualified and experienced experts and researchers in the fields have to say.” I do not see any evidence of this – my research turned up the RCOG and ACOG papers. I was researching ‘fetal pain’. There was much information. Lots. Since all you have been able to come up with is the opinion of two dissenting individuals and one irrelevant item I don’t see much evidence of you having investigated.
It appears to me that you use pro-abortions talking points and do not truly investigate on your own. – the RCOG and ACOG papers aren’t pro-abortion talking points. Dr Ranalli’s is however, an anti-choice ‘talking point’.
Not discredited and see my response above about your claim to “investigate” research. – two provided by dissenting individuals, at least one of which is agenda-driven, and a third item of no relevance – against the weight of two vast colleges of specialists in the field.
Was pregnant (mother of five), with all the resultant ultrasounds, tests, etc. as well as my own experiences – congratulations. But none of that is in the least bit evidential of when fetal pain begins.
can you say the same? – no, but in regard to knowing when fetal pain begins, it’s meaningless.
Also, have to question your conclusion that “numerous qualified experts in the field” agree with your opinion. – actually it’s me making a decision based on the conclusions of numerous experts assessing research in the field.
Again, I do not believe that you actually read the paper. – I have read it four times. Because I keep seeking what you claim. But it doesn’t exist.
This is the basis for their belief (fantastic as that is). – their ‘belief’ does not mention when fetal pain begins.
My own OPINION – to which you are fully entitled.
To summarise.
I questioned the claim of fetal pain at 20 weeks based on my investigating the topic. I found that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that the majority viewpoint of those in the field is that scientific research concludes that fetal pain begins at 24 weeks at the earliest.
In response top this you provided the papers of two dissenting individuals – at least one of whom is agenda-driven – and something which didn’t say anything specific regarding 20 or 24 weeks.
You then made a number of attempts to disparage and bring into question the conclusions that the RCOG and ACOG had come to. With nary a skerrick of evidence.
When I asked for evidence for your outrageous claims you told me it was up to me to disprove them!
And then you had an expectation that I should seek out evidence to support your claims!
The evidence which has been provided clearly demonstrates that the claim of fetal pain at 20 weeks is both spurious and marginal.
The pain of women being subjugated and oppressed is much worse Courtnay.
It appears you may believe a number of things which aren’t correct Lrning.
Hi again Reality:
You keep saying that I have not provided enough research when, in fact, it is you who have not provided any research to back up your claims, or to use your turn of phrase, “nary a skerrick of evidence.” It is clear that you have not done any research aside from reading these position papers from individuals who interpret the data to support their own profession. Interesting that you will discount any claims by someone who is pro-life regardless of any facts but you cling to any interpretation by those who are pro-abortion. Following are some of the research that I have found and referenced already (5 – not 2) and some more that is also relevant.
One final thought, you do not seem to have a very good grasp of the purpose of scientific research. Science is not out to “prove” or “disprove” anything. Good research deals with facts and avoids too much “interpretation” of the data. You want to parse words to try to support your own conclusions (among other tactics) but the language of science is such that it is based on available evidence and most scientists do not deal in absolutes. They phrase things such as “this indicates…” or ” in our study…” This is a common mistake by those who want to use their view of “science” as a de facto religion (or belief system if you prefer). I noted your assertion that “the scientific evidence demonstrates that a fetus does not possess the attributes required to confer ‘personhood’” as an example of this.
Research: (where are your links again?)
Original citations:
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 Apr;153(4):331-8.
Pediatrics. 2005 Jun;115(6):1494-500.
Glover, V. and Fisk, N. M. (1999), Fetal pain: implications for research and practice. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 106: 881–886. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08424.x
http://fn.bmj.com/content/96/4/F236.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20654261
http://nrlc.org/news/2010/NRL0809/Ranalli.html
New citations:
Myers LB, Bulich LA, Hess, P, Miller, NM. Fetal endoscopic surgery: indications and
anaesthetic management. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 18:2
(2004) 231-258.
Smith S. Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience. London: CARE, 1996.
Derbyshire SW, Foetal pain? Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and
Gynaecology 24:5 (2010) 647-655.
Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New
England Journal of Medicine. 317:21 (1987) 1321-1329.
Humphrey T. Some correlations between the appearance of human fetal reflexes and the development of the nervous system. Progress in Brain Research. 4 (1964) 93-135.
Valnaan HB, Pearson JP. What the fetus feels. British Medical Journal. 280 (1980)
233-234.4.
Vanhalto S, van Nieuwenhuizen O. Fetal Pain? Brain & Development. 22 (2000) 145-
150.
Brusseau R. Developmental Perpectives: is the Fetus Conscious? International
Anesthesiology Clinics. 46:3 (2008) 11-23.
Simons SH, Tibboel D. Pain perception development and maturation. Seminars on
Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 11 (2006) 227-231.
Mark D. Rollins, Mark A. Rosen, “Anesthesia for Fetal Intervention and Surgery”, in
Gregory’s Pediatric Anesthesia, ed. George A. Gregory & Dean B. Adropoulos (West
Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 444–474, 465.
Van Scheltema PNA, Bakker S, Vandenbussche FPHA, Oepkes, D. Fetal Pain. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 19:4 (2008) 311-324.
Kostovic I, Rakic P. Developmental history of the transient subplate zone in the visual and somatosensory cortex of the macaque monkey and human brain. Journal of Comparative Neurology. 297 (1990) 441-470.
Hevner RF. Development of connections in the human visual system during fetal midgestation: a Diltracing study. Journal of Experiemental Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology. 59 (2000) 385-392.
Gupta R, Kilby M, Cooper G. Fetal surgery and anaesthetic implications. Continuing
Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain. 8:2 (2008) 71-75.
Marc Van de Velde & Frederik De Buck, Fetal and Maternal Analgesia/Anesthesia for
Fetal Procedures. Fetal Diagn Ther 31(4) (2012) 201-9.
Salihagi? Kadi?, A., Predojevi?, M., Fetal neurophysiology according to gestational age, Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 17:5 (2012) 1–5, 3.
Fitzgerald M. Neurobiology of fetal and neonatalpain. In:Wall P, Melzack R, editors.
Textbook of Pain. Oxford Churchill Livingstone, 1994. p.153–63.
Giannakoulopoulos X, Sepulveda W, Kourtis P, Glover V, Fisk NM. Fetal plasma
cortisol and ?-endorphin response to intrauterine needling. Lancet. 344 (1994) 77-81.
Lowery CL, Hardman MP, Manning N, Clancy B, Hall RW, Anand KJS.
Neurodevelopmental Changes of Fetal Pain. Seminars in Pernatology. 31 (2007) 275-
282.
Williams C. Framing the fetus in medical work: rituals and practices. Social Science & Medicine. 60 (2005) 2085-2095.
Bocchi et al, Ultrasound and Fetal Stress: Study of the Fetal Blink-Startle Reflex
Evoked by Acoustic Stimuli. Neonatal Pain, ed. Giuseppe Buonocore & Carlo V.
Bellieni (Milan: Springer, 2007), 31–32.
Tran, KM. Anesthesia for fetal surgery. Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 15
(2010) 40-45.
Van de Velde M, Jani J, De Buck F, Deprest J. Fetal pain perception and pain
management. Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 11 (2006) 232-236.
Anand KJS. Pain, plasticity, and premature birth: a prescription for permanent
suffering? Nature Medicine. 6 (2000) 971-973.
Mark A. Rosen, “Anesthesia for Fetal Surgery and Other Intrauterine Procedures,” in
Chesnut’s Obstetric Anesthesia: Principles and Practice, ed. David H. Chestnut et al
(Philadelphia: Mosby, 2009), 131-132.
There is more but tired of cutting and pasting.
Thank you. I shall scrutinize the info you have provided. It may take some time but don’t worry, I willll respond.
“There is more but tired of cutting and pasting.” – how about reading?
Hi Reality –
Feel free to “scrutinize” the cited research, but I was hoping you could provide your own research links to support your viewpoint. You say there are many, but I really have not seen them.
Maureen
Loved Ava’s story but there’s a contradiction there.
Full term is 36 weeks.
The article states that Ava was born at 32 weeks.
So she was 4 weeks premature, not “eight weeks premature” as the article states.
Suzan
Aaaahh….where to begin.
Let’s deal with your last comment first shall we Maureen.
“Feel free to “scrutinize” the cited research” – well thankyou. Did you?
“but I was hoping you could provide your own research links to support your viewpoint” – actually, I would be quite happy to use most of the extensive list of references you have provided. Although most of them don’t even state a position on when fetal pain may begin.
“You say there are many, but I really have not seen them” – if you perused the RCOG and SCOG reports you would find an extensive list of research references.
Now, moving on…..
“You keep saying that I have not provided enough research when, in fact, it is you who have not provided any research to back up your claims” – until your most recent post you had provided a total of six. The initial three included two from dissenting individuals, at least one of whom was agenda driven, and a third which said nothing relevant. Later you provided three more. The two actual links contained nothing pertinent or conclusive, the third I shall deal with below.
“It is clear that you have not done any research aside from reading these position papers” – I responded earlier that I found those papers whilst researching the topic. As I say above, they contain numerous references from other sources.
“from individuals” – no, they are not from ‘individuals’. They are from groups.
“who interpret the data to support their own profession” – you keep claiming that yet have failed to provide anything whatsoever to verify it.
“Interesting that you will discount any claims by someone who is pro-life regardless of any facts but you cling to any interpretation by those who are pro-abortion” – not true. I have weighed the evidence, the consensus from the experts as well as what you have provided. The result is that the claim for fetal pain at 20 weeks is unproven. And again, please provide proof that RCOG and ACOG are ‘pro-abortion’.
“One final thought, you do not seem to have a very good grasp of the purpose of scientific research.” – uhu.
“Science is not out to “prove” or “disprove” anything” – except maybe for people like Dr Ranalli.
“Good research deals with facts and avoids too much “interpretation” of the data.” – indeed. Tell Dr Ranalli.
“You want to parse words to try to support your own conclusions (among other tactics)” – this smacks of being a cheap and weak attempt to disparage me and the vast weight of evidence.
“but the language of science is such that it is based on available evidence and most scientists do not deal in absolutes. They phrase things such as “this indicates…” or ” in our study…” This is a common mistake by those who want to use their view of “science” as a de facto religion (or belief system if you prefer).” – can’t say I disagree a whole lot with what you are saying here. The only problem is that it is people like the clearly agends driven Dr Ranalli who make that mistake, not the impartial RCOG and ACOG. Dr Ranalli is self-obviously agenda driven and the RCOG and ACOG are not, despite your repeated but completely unsupported claims.
Now, the citations you provide.
The five actual links you supply I have already addressed. As for Glover and Fisk, it states “The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage.” The piece is more about the application of pain relief.
Normal
0
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
Myers LB, Bulich LA, Hess, P, Miller, NM. Fetal endoscopic surgery: indications and
anaesthetic management. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 18:2
(2004) 231-258. - Suggests fetal age brackets in which the use of pain relief might be considered. It cites a number of studies but draws no conclusions. Again, it is more about the application of pain relief.
Normal
0
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
Smith S. Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience. London: CARE, 1996.
Derbyshire SW, Foetal pain? Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and
Gynaecology 24:5 (2010) 647-655. - When I copy and paste this into google it provides a list of anti-choice sites which cherry pick segments from a few studies.
Normal
0
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New
England Journal of Medicine. 317:21 (1987) 1321-1329. - “None of the data cited herein tell us whether neonatal nociceptive activity and associated responses are experienced subjectively by the neonate as pain similar to that experienced by older children and adults.”
Is there any point in me continuing to scrutinise the ream of references you have provided?
If you think they are truly relevant and support your claim perhaps you should read them and provide a short quote from them which supports your assertion that they support your assertion.
At this stage it feels like perhaps you typed ‘fetal’, ‘pain’ and one, two or three other words (maybe the word 20/twenty) in some combination into a search engine and received the list which you copied and pasted into your comment.
Or more likely, judging by what happens when I copy and paste them into google, they are the references from some anti-choicer’s article or website.
So please stop asking me to seek out the evidence which might support your case.
Sorry mods, I don’t know how or why the ‘mso’ bits landed. I built sections of my post in Word, that must be why.
Hi again Reality –
(My posts did the same thing when I put them in Word first, but it is very difficult to not use Word when you are writing such long posts)
1.) It makes it rather difficult to have a rational discussion of the research when you choose to discount anything from a person or group who you do not agree with – simply because you do not agree with their position. Dr. Ranalli gave an intelligent, reasoned interpretation of the research yet you keep harping about his pro-life viewpoint, as if this alone disqualifies his argument. You do not pay attention to the specific points he made, unlike my opinion of the RCOG paper which references specific problems with interpreting the data (especially the “fetus is unconscious” argument – still can’t believe they put that in there).
In other words, you will only accept interpretation of research from someone who already agrees with your position. I hope you can see the “Catch 22” with this reasoning. It also is the basis for me questioning your ability to understand medical research at all and certainly not the field of science.
2. Again – I notice your lack of citations other than those Working Group papers. I also looked at some of the actual research cited at the end of the paper. I found much is outdated but my main objection is their interpretation of the results of the research. I gave my reasons for this. I also point out that their interpretation is colored by their self-interest. Here are some sources for this (this refers to an earlier working group – but I hope you get the idea):
“Eighteen eminent members were formed into a working group to redraft the requested guidance, however, many doctors and professionals have been dismayed at the way the RCOG group has gone about its business.
The first point of concern is the group itself. Eleven of the group are abortionists, two are abortion clinic providers and one is a celebrity doctor.
You could be forgiven for thinking it’s a bit like asking British American Tobacco to write a set of guidance on the risks of smoking.”
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/abortion/rcog-smoke-and-mirrors-article-by-nadine-dorries-mp
This site from a group of pro-life ob/gyn outlines the systematic and historic pro-abortion bias of ACOG:
http://www.aaplog.org/about-2/history-of-aaplog/
3.) I don’t need to supply a short quote, I stand by the research listed. All of which supports the claim that a fetus is capable of feeling pain before 20 weeks. You are being rather obtuse about interpreting this data, again searching for a scientist to say “This data is 100% proven and cannot be interpreted any other way etc.” A scientist is taught to seek out all possible outcomes and reasons – even the process of evolution is not “proven” by science. However the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that it is a “proven” theory. It is the same with the subject of fetal pain – the overwhelming evidence suggest that fetus experiences both pain and pleasure much early than 20 weeks. The exact type is not known, since we cannot ask them how they are feeling. Interestingly, doctors did not start using anesthesia at all on babies until the 1980’s. So I guess it isn’t too much of a stretch to see their reluctance to acknowledge pain in fetuses.
“Operating on babies without anesthesia had been a common practice worldwide for nearly 40 years.”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-08-babies-pain_x.htm
4. I suggest you finish reading all of the research I supplied and then we can have a much more informed discussion, rather than you giving a quick look searching for an isolated word or phrase that you can try to use out of context to support your viewpoint.
5. A quick observation, I find it amusing that you say the pro-life position is not supported by research and evidence but when they do supply research you disregard it for coming from a pro-life source. I am not sure if you do this consciously or not but it truly weakens your credibility as a rational person trying to engage in a search for the truth.
Maureen
Greetings Maureen,
if I feel the need to ‘assemble’ something before posting it I think I’ll do it as if I’m composing an email.
“you choose to discount anything from a person or group who you do not agree with” – that is an inaccurate observation. What I keep stating is that the viewpoint of one dissenting individual is outweighed by the consensus of exceedingly large numbers of non-dissenters.
“Dr. Ranalli gave an intelligent, reasoned interpretation of the research yet you keep harping about his pro-life viewpoint” – he approached it from the viewpoint of wanting to paint a certain picture. It was ‘colored’.
“You do not pay attention to the specific points he made” – I did. It’s just that the specific points in the RCOG and ACOG reports outweigh his ‘conclusions’.
“unlike my opinion of the RCOG paper which CLAIMS specific problems with interpreting the data” – yes, your ‘opinion’. Remind me of your qualifications in this field?
“you will only accept interpretation of research from someone who already agrees with your position” – no, what I ‘accept’ is the overwhelming consensus of opinion from those in the relevant field.
“I hope you can see the “Catch 22? with this reasoning.” – there isn’t one, not by me anyway.
“It also is the basis for me questioning your ability to understand medical research at all and certainly not the field of science” – again, what are your qualifications? It would appear that you feel the vast consensus from those who work in any particular field of science should be discounted in the face of a small number of agenda driven dissenters beacuse they reflect your opinion. Would you adhere to Ken Ham’s theories in preference to the whole field of evolutionary science?
“Again – I notice your lack of citations other than those Working Group papers.” – and again, I point out that the papers contain an extensive list of references.
“I also looked at some of the actual research cited at the end of the paper. I found much is outdated” – ah, so you expect it to post-date the reports do you? Almost all of the ream of references which you copied and pasted from someone else’s reference list also pre-dates the reports. Even more.
“but my main objection is their interpretation of the results of the research. I gave my reasons for this.” – yes, your opinion. Because you don’t like what it says.
“I also point out that their interpretation is colored by their self-interest.” – yes, you keep doing that but repeatedly refuse to substantiate it. Oh wait, let’s see…..
“Here are some sources for this (this refers to an earlier working group – but I hope you get the idea)” – that would be another working group from another time then. Different people, different report. Not at all applicable.
The link to that well known anti-choicer Nadine Dorries doesn’t work. I even copied it into google and still found nothing.
The second one refers to 1972/73. Forty years ago! Most of the people involved at that time are probably dead! How pointless.
“I don’t need to supply a short quote, I stand by the research listed.” – are you sure you want to do that? They do rather let you down.
“All of which supports the claim that a fetus is capable of feeling pain before 20 weeks.” – indeed they don’t, as demonstrated by the texts I have quoted from your references.
“You are being rather obtuse about interpreting this data, again searching for a scientist to say “This data is 100% proven and cannot be interpreted any other way etc.” – it is you who is being obtuse. As I have said a few times now, it is all about the weight of evidence and the conclusions from the vast majority of those who are eminently qualified practitioners and researchers in the field.
“A scientist is taught to seek out all possible outcomes and reasons – even the process of evolution is not “proven” by science. However the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that it is a “proven” theory.” – ok.
“It is the same with the subject of fetal pain – the overwhelming evidence suggest that fetus experiences both pain and pleasure much early than 20 weeks.” – it does not. You have consistently failed to prove this at all.
“The exact type is not known, since we cannot ask them how they are feeling.” – so you’re guessing?
“Interestingly, doctors did not start using anesthesia at all on babies until the 1980?s.” – that is not quite 100% accurate. From the link you provided –
‘That belief went back to the 1940s and 1950s, when doctors lacked the technology to administer precise doses of anesthesia and monitor anesthetized patients’ vital functions, Anand says. Many babies died from anesthesia overdoses.’ – it’s a bit hard to die from an overdose of something which isn’t administered.
“So I guess it isn’t too much of a stretch to see their reluctance to acknowledge pain in fetuses.” – depends how elastic you can be in pursuit of something to support your stance.
“I suggest you finish reading all of the research I supplied and then we can have a much more informed discussion” – and I suggest you start reading it. As I said, I have provided quotes of text from the first few and they do not support your position.
“rather than you giving a quick look searching for an isolated word or phrase that you can try to use out of context to support your viewpoint.” – I had to read the articles to find the texts I quoted, which were generally found in the conclusions. But as we know, we still need to read the preceding text to check what information is provided and discussed there to understand why they reach the conclusions they do. Well that’s what I do anyway. If you believe they claim text which supports your position then perhaps you should do the same.
“I find it amusing that you say the pro-life position is not supported by research and evidence but when they do supply research you disregard it for coming from a pro-life source.” – and I find it amusing that you continue to disregard the point I have made that it is not a case of simply dismissing the dissenting viewpoint, it is the case that the overwhelming body of evidence and the conclusion reached by those in the relevant field reviewing the research is the credible measure. Not an interpretation of the research by a few dissenters.
“I am not sure if you do this consciously or not but it truly weakens your credibility as a rational person trying to engage in a search for the truth.” – reflecting?
Hi again Reality:
You keep writing of a “vast consensus” and “overwhelming consensus” that fetuses do not feel pain at 20 weeks (RCOG and ACOG even go beyond this) without offering any proof of this “consensus.” I know why you have not offered any citations at all – because they do not exist, not in large numbers certainly. However, the fact that you keep repeating this does not make it true – supply some data if you want to have any credibility at all. Of course you have not read the research I have provided, you have decided to take a few words out of context to support your position.
As far as my links:
Sorry about the first one. I tried it also and it does not work – but I did reference it yesterday when I wrote my response. It does show the persistent bias of the RCOG. I have supplied other links below.
1.) Regarding anesthesia for neonates (interesting read from John Hopkins):
“Indeed, until the mid 1980s, most newborns undergoing major surgery were “anesthetized” with nothing more than oxygen, a muscle relaxant, and just a “whiff” (and clearly a sub minimum alveolar concentration’s (MAC)) of a potent vapor anesthetic.”
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pedsanesthesia.org%2Fmeetings%2F2011annual%2Fsyllabus%2Fsubmissions%2FThe%2520Present-Opioids_MYaster.pdf&ei=XATFUaoByu6rAYKIgLAB&usg=AFQjCNHOCJJVBcglVifJiFkEF6vwMttQKw
2.) Regarding the bias of RCOG:
“The RCOG’s new guideline further entrenches its de facto role as the puppet of the abortion industry. Whether it is the physical and psychological effects of abortion, conscientious objection or counselling for women, the RCOG promotes ideology and bad science instead of high clinical and ethical standards.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2011/november23
3.) Regarding ACOG’s pro-abortion bias (you have to scroll down to see the history):
http://www.aaplog.org/about-2/history-of-aaplog/
I hope that you are able to supply some links that support your position so that I can see the “overwhelming consensus” of qualified professionals. In reality (no pun intended), it always easier to attack another’s position than having to defend your own. I believe that what you are trying to defend is, in fact, indefensible when looking through a scientific (as opposed to a personal, and/or other) perspective.
Maureen
Hello Maureen
Right now I am heading off for some R&R but I shall return in about 48 hours to address your response.
Hi Reality:
Enjoy your rest. “See” you later.
Maureen
Hello again Maureen. From the top.
bmj.com/content/96/4/F236.full
A dissenting viewpoint from one individual. As I stated previously it is rare to find 100% concensus. Hardly a game changer.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20654261
Again, as stated previously, this doesn’t provide a position of any clarification on whether fetal pain beigins at 20 or 24 weeks. Pointless.
nrlc.org/news/2010/NRL0809/Ranalli.html
Another dissenting viewpoint from a single individual, this time a self-evidently agenda driven one.
The Glover and Fisk report – from 1999 – states unequivocably in its conclusion “The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage.” If you think this is selective or inaccurate then you will be able to cite something from their conclusion which indicates otherwise.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. – again from 1999 – is about analgesia and sedation in preterm neonates, It says nothing about when fetal pain may begin, at all.
Pediatrics. – from 2005 – tells us that morphine does not provide adequate analgesia for acute procedural pain among preterm neonates. Again, zip about when fetal pain might begin.
The ‘usa today’ piece tells us that until the 1980’s – thirty years ago – it was considered unnecessary or too risky to provide pain relief for post-birth infants. Zip, zero, nada about when fetal pain may begin.
Your link of many characters leads us to a paper titled “Anesthesia for the Newborn: Past, Current, and Future’. That’s ‘newborns’, absolutely nothing about when fetal pain may begin.
Then we come to the long list of references you copied and pasted. A real mish-mash of stuff. Most of those that even mention fetal pain specifically date from the 1980’s. Some are about the delivery of anesthesia. Then we have stuff like “the fetus in medical work: rituals and practices”, “Ultrasound and Fetal Stress: Study of the Fetal Blink-Startle Reflex Evoked by Acoustic Stimuli”.
It is apparent that whatever the source or sources you copied this list from, when fetal pain begins was not their focus.
And it would seem that you did not peruse them. When I cited text from some of them demonstrating that they did not support your case, such as –
Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New
England Journal of Medicine. 317:21 (1987) 1321-1329. - “None of the data cited herein tell us whether neonatal nociceptive activity and associated responses are experienced subjectively by the neonate as pain similar to that experienced by older children and adults.”
you dismissed this as selective and cherry picking, yet you refused to cite any text from them which indicates otherwise.
In regards to your attempts to malign RCOG and ACOG and make unsustainable accusations of bias against them –
spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2011/november23
An activist anti-choice organisation claims that a set of guidelines which provide information for practitioners which adhere to the legal requirements constitutes a ‘pro-abortion ideology’. What a surprise!
aaplog.org/about-2/history-of-aaplog/
Another activist anti-choice organisation, this time patting itself on the back for its anti-choice activism. I had already scrolled down when you provided this link earlier. It presents no real evidence of ACOG’s supposed ‘pro-abortion bias’, it is about activism AAPLOG has undertaken due to its anti-choice bias.
Activist anti-choice organisations will accuse any organisation which is not also actively anti-choice of having a pro-choice bias, no matter how neutral they actually are. Neither of these links provide any evidence that RCOG or ACOG have a pro-choice bias. They are non-evidential claims from biased groups.
Perhaps if you could find some unbiased, non agenda driven sources which demonstrate that RCOG and/or ACOG have an identifiable pro-choice bias there could be something to address.
Links and references which support my position –
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
http://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/Government%20Relations%20and%20Outreach/20120618DCAborStmnt.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20120915T2120559712
Bruska M. An ultrastructural study of the myelination of the trigeminal ganglion in human foetuses aged 10 to 23 weeks. Folia Morphologiica (Warszawa) 2003;62:231–3.
Brusseau R, Myers L. Developing consciousness: fetal anesthesia and analgesia.
Seminars in Anesthesia, Perioperative Medicine and Pain 2006;25:189–95.
Cervero F, Laird J. Visceral pain. Lancet 1999;353:2145–8.
Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness.
Journal of Consciousness Studies 1994;1:1–16.
Craig KD, Whitfield MF, Grunau RVE, Linton J, Hadjistavropoulos HD. Pain in the
preterm neonate: behavioural and physiological indices. Pain 1993;52:287–99.
Derbyshire SWG. Measuring our natural painkiller. Trends Neurosci 2002;25:65–6.
Derbyshire SWG. Can fetuses feel pain? BMJ 2006;332,909–12.
Ellingson R. Variability of visually evoked responses in the human newborn. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1970;29:10–19.
Fitzgerald M. Neurobiology of fetal and neonatal pain. In: Wall P, Melzack R, editors.
Textbook of Pain , Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1994. p. 153–63.
Fitzgerald M, Walker SM. Infant pain management: a developmental neurobiological
approach. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2009;5:35–50.
Foulkes T, Wood JN. Pain genes. PLoS Genet 2008;4:e1000086.
Gitau R, Fisk NM, Teixeira JM, Cameron A, Glover V. Fetal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal
stress responses to invasive procedures are independent of maternal responses. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:104–9.
Gupta A, Giordano J. On the nature, assessment, and treatment of fetal pain:
neurobiological bases, pragmatic issues, and ethical concerns. Pain Physician 2007;10:525–32.
Haynes J, Rees G. Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans.Nat Rev Neurosci 2006;7:523–34.
Ismail KMK, Wilson M, Kilby MD. (2000). Fetal pain and analgesia. Curr Obstet Gynaecol
2000;10, 214–17.
Merker B. Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: a challenge for neuroscience and
medicine. Behav Brain Sci 2007;30:63–81.
Nofzinger EA, Derbyshire SWG. Pain imaging in relation to sleep. In: Lavigne G, Sessle BJ,
Choiniere M, Soja PJ, editors. Sleep and Pain . Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2007. p. 153–73).
Rees G, Kreiman G, Koch C. Neural correlates of consciousness in humans. Nat Rev
Neurosci 2002;3:261–70.
Rose DF, Eswaran H. Spontaneous neuronal activity in fetuses and newborns. Experimental
Neurology, 2004;190:S37–43.
Ulfig N, Neudorfer F, Bohl J. Transient structures of the human fetal brain: subplate,
thalamic reticular complex, ganglionic eminence. Histol Histopathol 2000;15:71–90.
Ven De Velde M, Jani J, De Buck F, Deprest J. Fetal pain perception and pain management.
Semin Fetal Neonat Med 2006;11:232–6.
Vanhatalo S, van Nieuwenhuizen O. Fetal pain? Brain Dev 2000;22:145–50.
White MC, Wolf AR. Pain and stress in the human fetus. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol
2004;18:205–20
Lee SJ, Ralston HJP, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA. Fetal pain: A systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. JAMA 2005; 294: 947-954.
EXPRESS group. One-year survival of extremely preterm infants after active perinatal care in
Sweden. JAMA 2009; 301: 2225-2233.
MacDonald H & the Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 1024?1027.
They all support the case that fetal pain does not begin prior to 24 weeks. If you believe that they do then show me where and how.
I think that playing chess with you could be a rather ‘interesting experience.
,
/