Anti-abortion opponents to new fetal anesthesia legislation engage in dishonest debate
Montana may become the first state to force abortionists to provide anesthesia to preborn babies aged 20 weeks and older who they are about to dismember.
A Republican-dominated House and Senate just sent HB 479 to the desk of Democrat pro-abortion Gov. Steve Bullock.
HB 479 is a spin on an outright 20-week abortion ban, which Montana pro-life advocates decided against, believing the governor would veto it.
The thinking, obviously, is this bill will be harder for Bullock to oppose.
A law such as this serves three purposes:
1. Educates the public about the humanity of preborn babies, juxtaposed against the atrocity of abortion
2. Gives abortion-minded mothers one last chance to reconsider – a final big tug on their maternal heartstrings
3. Provides compassionate, humanitarian pain relief if the mother nonetheless proceeds with the abortion, to a baby no one in Montana can as yet legally stop from being brutally torn limb from limb
Of course, the abortion industry opposes this bill - for all the aforementioned reasons. They lose tactical ground every time the focus is placed back on the baby, they lose money when abortion-minded mothers change their minds, and they could care less whether babies suffer while being aborted. (Who knows, they may relish the thought, sadists that they are.)
So they lie, ludicrously claiming babies don’t feel pain at 20 weeks, despite the fact babies 18-wks-old and up routinely receive anesthesia when undergoing prenatal surgery.
And by now it should come as no surprise that pro-life purists, or “immediatists” as they like to be called, oppose this bill as well.
There’s something wrong with a picture that has pro- and anti-abortion advocates working to block the same pro-life legislation.
Nevertheless, if there is a debate between pro-lifers to have on this bill, it should be an honest one, which it is currently not.
An honest debate would be on whether support of abortion restrictions or regulations is to actually sustain abortion, which is what immediatists claim.
They say that were all pro-lifers to focus single-mindedly on stopping all abortions, rather than saving babies around the edges, we would stop abortion faster, and without “compromising.”
This claim is unproven and, in fact, could be considered disproven if the failure of all statewide personhood initiatives to date is taken into consideration. (Although I want to make clear I support personhood initiatives. I basically support any and every pro-life initiative.)
Nor are they undertaking any massive effort to make abortions illegal in the U.S. Immediatist group American Right to Life gave its board 10 years to “end abortion in America” – or resign. That was in 2007. They have two years.
In fact, the only massive effort underway by immediatists is to attack incrementalist efforts and supporters.
At any rate, there is no effort without “compromise” short of enacting a worldwide ban against all abortions. This may be true, immediatists say, but then there is such a thing as “principled” compromise, vs “unprincipled” compromise – which they decide.
In other words, they decide which babies are morally acceptable to leave behind until such future unknown year when all can be saved. And basically they have determined geographical incrementalism is principled, and all other incrementalism is unprincipled.
So, banning all abortions in Mississippi would be principled, even though this is the same as saying “and then you can kill the baby” in all 49 other states and the rest of the world, but a federal ban against abortions past the gestational age of 20 weeks would be unprincipled.
At any rate, this debate has been raging for decades.
But what is not acceptable is to misconstrue this debate, for instance as Abolish Human Abortion did yesterday, misrepresenting Father Frank Pavone’s statement supporting Montana’s bill…
If I’m wrong then the only other conclusion to reach is leaders of AHA are incapable of critical thought as to the rationale for Montana’s fetal pain bill.
As pro-life advocate Tom Herring wrote in response:
AHA falsely portrays Pavone as someone who simply wants babies sedated before they are butchered. What AHA fails to see is that fighting over legislation to numb the baby’s pain makes headlines and causes clueless Americans to consider the fact that abortion is actually a form of human torture. This is common knowledge to AHA and to pro-lifers, but it is a shocking and horrifying revelation to many ignorant and otherwise disinterested voters.
This legislation is one more call, one more appeal to the conscience of a country that is marked largely by its indifference in the matter. The people are indifferent because, for one thing, nobody has told them about the excruciating pain which babies experience in abortion.
Fr. Pavone is trying to tell them about it. And you choose to mock and deride him for it. You’ve somehow managed to convince yourselves the world is upside down: Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life are the real enemy, joining pro-aborts to attack Pavone is the answer, and babies will be saved if we can make enough memes against pro-lifers.
Abby Johnson added to the obfuscation by half-quoting Fr. Pavone:
Pro-Life Action League’s Eric Scheidler generically noted:
Those who attack pro-lifers for “incrementalism” don’t seem to have looked up the word.
They pretend that, say, a law requiring fetuses to be anesthetized before being aborted is an end in itself, rather than an achievable *increment* on the way towards the ultimate goal of ending legal abortion.
Worse, they pretend that we’re somehow okay with babies being aborted, as long as they don’t feel pain (or they’re less than 20 weeks old, or their grandparents know about it, or an ultrasound is performed, etc.).
The reality is, we’re so determined to end legal abortion that we’re using *every* legal means available *right now* to save *every* unborn child we can.
A final conclusion to draw is almost too horrifying to imagine.
That is that immediatists do not care that late-term babies headed for slaughter this very moment - whether or not they approve – are feeling the excruciating pain of their dismembered deaths.
They’re clearly willing to let these babies feel the torture of their murders while they wait for the day 5-10-20-50 years down the road when abortion is stopped.
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.
“So, banning all abortions in Mississippi would be principled, even though this is the same as saying “and then you can kill the baby” in all 49 other states and the rest of the world”, but a federal ban against abortions past the gestational age of 20 weeks would be unprincipled.”
facetious argument
Incrementalism is very difficult to specifically apply re: RC theology, which is the standard of comprehension that a lot of pro-lifers mark their support for legislation by. That they do so, denotes a trust and faith in an eternal result for all, including the unborn – not, as divisively suggested, a lack of critical thinking ability.
You are right about one thing – duking it out publicly serves only the devil – the ‘king of strategy’.
fantastic article.
I’m actually baffled by this. I have all the respect in the world for folks like Jill and for Eric Scheidler, but I just can’t wrap my mind around the notion of providing anesthesia for a fetus actually helping to save any babies. It reminds me of proposals to change sentencing to incentive condom use by rapists. It actually seems to me that it would perhaps help the abortion industry in the long run by making abortion seem humane.
It’s easy to take shots at AHA because very little those folks do appears to be in good faith. But I don’t know that it’s fair to suggest that everybody opposed to this legislation is dishonest.
This seems like the type of discussion that will turn nasty, so please accept this comment as made in charity and good faith.
I am an abolitionist. I believe that the right thing to do is to recognize the human rights of the children and protect them from all harm.
I am not opposed to incremental legislation. I support it, because it helps the world to recognize the humanity of the children…. and it saves some lives as we work for abolition.
With every debate on every incremental law, it is an opportunity to speak for all children and their mothers.
Anyone who opposes incremental legislation simply because they are not abolition laws is a fool. Every bit of legislation must be evaluated as either a step toward life or a rule against life. That is the criteria that matters…. even as we speak out about how all life is sacred.
I think the incremental vs. immediate/absolutist dichotomy is largely a false dichotomy. There is almost nobody in the movement that proclaims a blanket opposition to incrementalism. And those few that do simply get the most attention because they are so loud.
Any incrementalist measure needs to be evaluated on its merits. Jill provides some strong reasons in favor of the anesthesia requirement. But the notion that such legislation might be counterproductive does deserve serious consideration as well.
Finally, incrementalism implies that we’re getting somewhere. I’m not sure this legislation really gets us closer to saving any babies. It might anesthetize consciences with an even greater disregard for human life as long as no suffering is involved. After all, much of the abortion mentality is straight utilitarianism–balancing pleasure and suffering.
Just to clarify — as passed and sent to the Governor, Missouri HB 479 does NOT require the use of anesthesia, only informed consent to the mother, giving her the option of anesthesia. It sets it up as an exception in cases of medical emergency, or when the mother refuses to provide informed consent to anesthesia. http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20151&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=479&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=HLTC&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=
The graphic from AHA is awful. Fr. Pavone is a man committed to the pro-life cause, with a ministry that does tremendous good. But AHA hates Catholics, so what do you expect?
[…] Jill Stanek has reported that Montana may become the first state to force abortionists to provide anesthesia to preborn […]
“The reality is, we’re so determined to end legal abortion that we’re using *every* legal means available *right now* to save *every* unborn child we can.” / Eric Scheidler
Anesthesia doesn’t save a single child.
In addition, I’m suspicious of any argument than can be used by either side.
If we truly believe in the humanity of the unborn, this is not incremental — it is a serious compromise that sends the message “since we can’t win the war, we’ll suffice to remove the pain of the procedure.” That’s hypocritical and wrong. It is an unthinkable act, and we’re tacitly allowing it under the condition that the torture not be felt.
The dismemberment ban is incremental, highlights the humanity of the unborn and *does* save lives. It points to the pain without compromise. Appearing to sanction the horrific procedure to lessen pain is, to me, unconscionable and does not save a single life. Worse, it gives the abortionist more ammunition to continue.
Priests For Life is awesome!!! and so are the Nuns Of Life(equally awesome.
Thanks for saving massive amounts of babies, Catholic Clergy, you rock! God Bless You and May the Complete United Hearts Holy Love Blessings of Jesus and Mary rest on ALL your efforts.
Rebecca “AHA hates Catholics”
This piece of ‘red meat’ is liable to get people riled up so to be clear…from their own web site:
“It is fair to say that abolitionists hate Roman CatholicISM, the system that leads individuals whom we love into deception and Hell. If we did not love Roman Catholic individuals, we would not hate Roman CatholicISM. If we hated Roman Catholics, if we wanted what is bad for them, we would withhold the Gospel of Jesus Christ from them so that they could not be saved from God’s wrath. We love Roman Catholics too much to remain silent and let them remain in their deception.”
http://abolishhumanabortion.com/faq-about-abolition/#why-hate-catholics
I suppose one could say they hate the church but love the churchgoer. What that has to do with accomplishing the task of abolishing human abortion…I can’t even guess. sigh.
As the mother of a child who was diagnosed with a lethal birth defect during pregnancy, and who carried to term, I am horrified that a pro-life “leader” would offer any type of support for this bill.
The number one reason for terminating a pregnancy with a poor prenatal diagnosis is to spare the unborn child pain. Strangely enough, sparing the unborn child pain is also one of the primary reasons for continuing the pregnancy.
I think it can be safe to assume that for those who are inclined to terminate, this law will change very little. But for those who may have been inclined to continue their pregnancies based on the possibility of pain for their unborn child this changes the dynamic completely.
Those of us who work to promote carry to term, have the most success promoting it based on a parent’s perception of what peace in the womb looks like. Unfortunately, even devoutly Christian families will consider termination when faced with this decision. We emphasize that the only way to ensure that their child will live a pain-free life is to continue their pregnancy. This bill will change that.
You are also changing the fetal pain debate, which was being won in legislative battles and in the hearts of American people- even those who considered themselves pro-choice. This is a play right into “their” hands- and a way for pro-choice organizations to answer fetal-pain bills with bills that will allow them to continue aborting late-term pregnancies while seeming to be caring and compassionate.
The barbarity of abortion is what spurs people to fight against it. While making it less barbaric would seem to be a move in the right direction, in the long run anything that makes abortion even remotely attractive is going to become a stumbling point.
Coming from the carry to term side- I can also tell you that this will be used by physicians to pressure women into aborting, when faced with a lethal anomaly during pregnancy. Studies have shown that a woman will usually make the decision to terminate within three days of her baby’s diagnosis, in addition, studies have also shown that pressure from medical professionals is of great influence when it comes to a woman’s choices in this situation.
Finally, we can not support compassionate killing in the wombats then turn around and decry legislation that would open the doorway for compassionate killing in the nursing home. While there is not a perfect parallel here, the similarities are enough.
No exceptions, no compromise means exactly that- no exceptions and no compromise.
Who here would honestly choose no anesthesia if there was a 100 percent chance guarantee that you were going to be legally dismembered by a ‘doctor’ within minutes?
Frebus? Sarah? Loretta? Steve? Abby? Let us know please.
Praying for you Fr. Pavone!
I would absolutely choose to forgoe anesthesia if I knew that another of my brothers or sisters would be marked for destruction due to my decision. And I would do so remembering the martyrs of the Colliseum and how they too, were torn apart while taking a firm stand for Christ.
There is a huge assumption that you are making here. You have no idea what people are thinking when you pose a question like that, in addition, you have no knowledge about their individual life experiences.
In addition to carrying my child to birth with a lethal anomaly, the same pregnancy also put me at risk- my daughter had virtually no umbilical cord. Her abdomen was almost fused directly to the placenta.
Had I gone into labor, and not been able to reach a hospital in enough time, I would have hemmoraghed. She would have been stuck in the birth canal and we both would have died.
I risked my life for my daughter. The daughter we knew would most likely die. People rise up to all sorts of occasions when forced to do so. Your doubt says more about how far you are willing to go, for the life of your brother, than it does about my stance on this issue.
I want to be crystal clear, too, I am directly referencing your question to me. I affirm, j would forgoe this knowing that my refusal would save lives.
I am by no means a hater of Fr. Pavone, which is why I am so absolutely disheartened by this.
Once again, exceptional babies are pushed aside to compromise on abortion legislation. Except this time it’s ok, because they are just going to die anyways. As disappointing as it is, it’s par for the course.
Jill,
There IS another side to this debate and I believe Steve Deace, Washington Times columnist and syndicated talk show host, brings up some good points shared by many in the movement: https://www.facebook.com/StevenDeace/posts/10204015201765346?fref=nf
“Would you support legislation in 1857 that said as long as the slave was sedated it was okay to lynch him? Would that be considered a just law? How about a law that said it was okay for Herod to kill the first born in Bethlehem provided he did the same. Would you support that? I would hope most morally sane people would say of course not.
Then why is a well-known pro-life priest urging the Montana Legislature to pass a law that says as long as a pre-born baby is given anesthesia it’s okay to kill the child (even via a late-term abortion)? Please tell me no matter what side of the incrementalism fight you find yourself, we can all at least agree this is a grotesque injustice. It is one thing to say we’re going to save as many as we can. It’s entirely another to flat-out sign on to helping the state to execute innocents “more humanely.” There is nothing humane about infanticide in the first place. Christ-like love is to sacrifice yourself for another. Not to sign off on the unjust execution of another provided they’re given anesthesia first.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus. Have mercy on us.”
So they lie, ludicrously claiming babies don’t feel pain at 20 weeks
Oh good grief – while there are quite a few people that want to believe that 20 week babies feel pain, what proof is there, actually?
Sarah, would you absolutely choose to forgo anesthesia before being dismembered if there was no way that you would know if another of your brothers or sisters would be marked for destruction due to your decision?
Daniel, would you absolutely choose to forgo anesthesia before being dismembered if there was no way that you would know if another of your brothers or sisters would be marked for destruction due to your decision?
Here’s the thing–the rape analogy only works if you say that it is like an HIV positive rapist running around raping women. You somehow get him to wear condoms so the victims aren’t given a disease while you ALSO work to stop the rape. The ultimate goal is to stop the rapist–but in the meantime are you okay with him giving women an incurable disease?
Yes we want to stop ALL abortions–but its so compassionate of you folks to want babies to feel their arms and legs being twisted off so you can prove how barbaric abortion is. You yourselves of course are comfortably born and no one is going to twist your legs and arms off within minutes. But you sanctimoniously pat yourselves on the back for being true pro-life abolitionists–while babies scream silently in the bloody darkness of their mother’s wombs as they’re ripped to shreds.
You know what? If I can spare a baby pain–I WILL. And I will not stop trying to overturn Roe. Each pro-life bill chips away at Roe and the pro-aborts know it. That is why they run scared over these incrementalist bills. When you find yourself on the same side as the pro-aborts–you’re no longer pro-life! REMEMBER THAT, AHA.
There are actually a number of peer reviewed studies which show fetal pain is something not be considered. Problematic in that is that the ACOG refuses to acknowkedge them.
While most would use that refusal to acknowledge the studies as proof of their inaccuracy, the ACOG had been involved in scandals before, regarding abortion politics.
Whether or not you firmly believe in fetal pain- wouldn’t it behoove us to assume that all unborn children feel pain, rather than to ignore the possibility and find out dozens of years down the line that we were wrong?
There are some studies which seem to indicate that not only do unborn children feel pain, but they feel it more intensely due to incomplete formation of nueropathways.
Anecdotally, we can see this evidenced by babies in the NICU, who must be handled very carefully, due to their sensitivity.
In former times, the newly born were thought to feel no pain. Make children were routinely circumcised without anesthetic. We now know that this was incorrect.
I would be unwilling to take the chance, if I were inclined towards abortion, of creating an environment where the suffering of an unborn child was not seen as a remote possibility. Science seems to be pushing the age at which we feel pain further and further backwards. Until we know for certain, it’s always best to err on the side of believing that they do feel pain.
Sarah, would you absolutely choose to forgo anesthesia before being dismembered if there was no way that you would know if another of your brothers or sisters would be marked for destruction due to your decision?
How about this analogy which is actually more appropriate . . . “Would you be in favor of a law that allowed rape as long as the rapist used a “date-rape drug so the woman victim would not experience the pain of the rape?”
Don’t you see how damaging this would be when trying to outlaw all rape? Am I missing something?
Here is an article that I penned as President of Georgia Right to Life entitled the “Biblical Case For Changing Unjust Laws—Justly”.
It is not intended to imply a “holier than thou” attitude I am trying to approach it from a biblical worldview.
http://www.grtl.org/?q=node/569
Thats a very valid question. No one would ever choose to be ripped to pieces, especially sand anesthetic, but then again- We know that natural law is placed in our hearts at conception, and I believe firmly in faith in the womb. You make the assumption that an unborn child is not sentient, however we see in the Bible (Luke 1:41), that unborn children are sentient- and recognize the power of God when they come into contact with it. Do you really doubt a compassionate God, who could remove the suffering via supernatural means, from the unborn victim of crime, if He could? What limitations you put on Him.
I find that I have to trust God in these instances- and lean not on my own understanding. Everyone here is rationalizing this in human terms. *We* don’t like to see suffering, so *we* are going to fix it…. But this isn’t the way to fix it. I note that while people were quick to jump on the rape analogy above, no one addressed the lynching analogy. Because when there’s a body hanging from a tree, the idea of anesthetization before murder becomes ludicrous.
One other, separate, item I’d like to address: “working” together with pro-choice groups has happened a number of times in the pro-life movement. Most recently in a Supreme Court case regarding maternity leave for a female UPS worker. Most notably in working against clinic violence.
No exceptions, no compromise. No incrementalism. Abolish abortion, period. If you allow any exceptions, you are not pro-life, you are pro-choice with exceptions.
Oh, and one note- again, you have no clue what my life experience is, in relation to my “comfortably born” status.
Please stop with ad hominem attacks. They aren’t valid comments on what we are talking about. This is a very, very serious subject that stirs up many passions. Quips and attempts at “gotcha” statements don’t help people understand one another.
As for being “holier than thou”? Trust me, that’s not how I feel. I feel angry. The majority of babies whose lives are ended at 20+ weeks, are babies with lethal birth defects. Of primary exception concern are babies conceived as a result of rape or incest…. Secondary are poor, but survivable, prenatal diagnosis, and dead last — as always, are the babies with lethal birth defects. Even a good number of pro-life persons look the other way when people talk about aborting for this reason.
I’m angry that babies liked daughter come at the end of the line.
My daughter was fortunate that I was her mother. To someone else, she would have been a throw-away baby.
Babies like her don’t need someone to give them anesthesia, she needed someone to fight for their right to life.
Unfortunately, that isn’t happening her.
If I were about to be lynched…I would prefer to be anesthetized first.
If I were about to be raped…I would prefer to be anesthetized first.
If I were about to be aborted…I would prefer to be anesthetized first.
If I were a slave…I would prefer someone would advocate for decent clothing and housing as well as emancipation.
Until they ban all abortions, the least we can do for these precious humans who are being dismembered alive is provide pain relief. They are innocent and their hurt should not be lost in this debate. They are suffering humans and if that is all the court will allow, it’s the least we can do. All of us should be ashamed that we have allowed this barbaric treatment of human beings for so long. You can’t abuse your dog but you can tear an innocent baby limb from limb…completely insane.
they could care less whether babies suffer while being aborted. (Who knows, they may relish the thought – ah, the usual pathetic ad hominem attack.
So they lie, ludicrously claiming babies don’t feel pain at 20 weeks – utter tosh. The relevant specialists in the field such as the AMA state unequivocally that 28-29 weeks is the earliest possible time. Anti-choicers and their political knaves are the ones perpetuating the myth.
“Until they outlaw abortion, the least we can do is have exceptions for rape and incest, so that we can limit the number of babies being killed.”
Incrementalism will never, ever lead you to a good place.
An item that no one is addressing- this bill doesn’t guarantee that these babies will get anesthetic- only that it will be offered. You are giving away a massive amount of power to the pro-choice lobby, with this bill. You are essentially eradicating the need for bans on pain-capable abortions.
Sad part- it’s only going to be available to people who can afford to pay for it.
I’m not heartless. I just believe in the power of a God who works as long as we follow His rules, even though our rational minds may not understand them.
“Would you be in favor of a law that allowed rape as long as the rapist used a “date-rape drug so the woman victim would not experience the pain of the rape?”
I wouldn’t favor laws that allow rape in the first place. Would you?
Do you think people that have surgery to remove a cancerous appendage should be anesthetized before their body part is cut off?
You took the words right out of my mouth, Tommy R.
Hmmm…. who coined the term ” immediasts” for those who honor God’s law regarding life? Actually, we are well aware that the personhood approach takes time…will not happen immediately….so I find it rather ironic that the term was chosen to describe those who support the personhood approach to ending abortion.
Excuse me, the term is immediatists….see above.
It is a mixed up internet where the AHA denies being part of the pro-life movement and abortion advocates like ExG beg to be considered pro-life.
While I cannot condone abortion even if the baby doesn’t feel pain, this is a bill that pro-choicers should find hard to oppose.
“You are giving away a massive amount of power to the pro-choice lobby, with this bill.”
Oops. I think you meant pro-abort lobby. We gave massive power to them 40 plus years ago. But we’re taking it back.
Ex-GOP presents as rational and considered. Is that why some accuse him of being pro-choice?
“To rip off the arm or leg of a 20-week-old-or-more unborn baby is barbaric; to do it without at least giving the child an anesthetic beforehand is just plain sadistic.”
– Fr. Pavone
I hope, by your “oops” that you are not implying that somehow I have slipped and am really some covert pro-choice radical trying to stir the pot. That’s how I read that response.
If there are any doubts as to the veracity of my own story, you can click my name and it will take you to the website that my family created to encourage women to continue their pregnancies with a lethal diagnosis. My daughter’s story is under the “stories” tag, Beatrix’s Story.
I don’t use the term “pro-abort” because it is off-putting to people who are on the fence about their pro-choice leanings. It’s intentionally divisive and I desperately want people to change their views. Pro-choice people ridicule us when we use terms like that. We need to be intelligent, not childish.
The whole idea of taking power back- you are absolutely right. And pain capable bans are a HUGE part of that effort. But this bill removes the necessity for pain-capable abortion restrictions. You are babies whatever gains you received through pain-capable bills right back to them.
A secondary note:
Young adults are becoming involved in the pro-life movement because they see it as a humanitarian issue. Those same young adults are less firm in their views about “death with dignity”. Part of my concern is that when we throw anesthesia into the mix, we create a dynamic where people will begin viewing abortion similarly to how they view “death with dignity”. We are making abortion more humane.
This is not good for the pro-life movement. The reason which pain-capable bills are fought so hard against, as far as legislation, isn’t because pro-choice persons don’t believe that unborn children feel pain (they don’t really care). It’s because it literally changes the entire Roe v. Wade argument. Row v. Wade creates federal legislation which limits abortion at viability. Pain Capable limits it four weeks early. You are throwing out the opportunity to move Roe v. Wade back significantly… Because as soon as these anesthesia laws go into affect, you have destroyed any reason for pain capable laws to be in effect.
“Pro-choice people ridicule us when we use terms like that.”
Do you really think that you will stop those that support murdering children from ridiculing those of us who oppose murdering children by calling them what they want to be called? They support killing children for crying in the rain.
Would you absolutely choose to forgo anesthesia before being dismembered if there was no way that you would know if another of your brothers or sisters would be marked for destruction due to your decision?
Do you think people that have surgery to remove a cancerous appendage should be anesthetized before their body part is cut off?
“We are making abortion more humane.”
Versus making abortion less humane? How would one go about that?
If someone kidnapped your child and they left a note telling you that they would be dismembering your child no matter what but that they would provide anesthesia to your child before the dismemberment if you tied balloons to your mailbox, would you tie balloons to your mailbox? Remember, your child is going to be dismembered either way.
“We need to be intelligent, not childish.”
So do that.
“Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalomocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age.”
– the AMA
They support killing children for crying in the rain. – gee, that’ll get you taken seriously.
Planned Parenthood is using a quote by Demoncratic Montana State Senator Dick Barrett in another sadistic attempt to defend child killing,
Regarding abortion Dick says, “This is a decision we should leave to the woman and to her doctor, and to the medical profession, and to her spiritual advisers, and to her family – not the Montana legislature.”
I think he forgot to mention landlord, manicurist, dog groomer and grocery bagger.
If women in crisis make such good decisions, why do they need all those other folks giving their input? TRUST WOMEN, remember?
Ughbelievable.
I’d trust you’d want women to have medical information, spiritual guidance if that’s their thing and their loved ones thoughts on the matter. That’s how women in crisis can be trusted to make the best decision for them.
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
~P.T. Barnum, Showman~
The reason incrementalism is necessary is because every generation needs to have MORE information about the abortion procedure than the one before. If no one were advocating for laws that reveal the elements of the abortion procedure that the abortion industry desperately doesn’t want widely known, then, of course, every succeeding generation would have MORE abortions.
Sarah, did you forget about my questions?
For those demanding to know how this bill could possibly save a life- cost.
It costs more money to have an anesthesiologist at any medical procedure. Abortions are often expensive out-of-pocket endeavors. Add a few hundred more for anesthesia and some mothers might just decide that it’s too expensive to afford. However, having been given information about fetal pain, they don’t want their child to suffer needless pain (especially parents who have been pressured by doctors to abort because of a child’s disability). Combine the two, and you might save a few children.
Is the proposed law perfect? Of course not. But the purpose is to save some and make sure that the barbarism that is committed daily in this country is not hidden but revealed. To force pro-aborts to publicly defend the withholding of anesthesia from late-term abortion victims makes people aware that these abortions are happening. It disgusts people.
And “Reality”- please provide a link or citation for your AMA quote so I can see the full context. I find it surprising that premies can survive at 25 weeks but have no ability to feel pain. If that’s the case, why use anesthesia for their surgeries?
Obviously, you aren’t reading my responses. If you go back you will see my answers to whether I would ask for anesthetic.
Whether my child was being harmed or not, is not the same in any way. My child being harmed, with or without anesthetic, isn’t going to potentially cause a chain reaction which will cause other children — who may have been saved — to be harmed. Of course, as a human being, I would ask for my child to be saved from pain…. But if my child were harmed in that way, due to being kidnapped, most likely I wouldn’t be offered that option. And further on- I would prefer you not reference my child being harmed again. As I state here, it has absolutely no relation to the subject at hand. It’s a straw man argument. The only reason I did answer it, is because if I didn’t you would assume that you had “got me” and decided that all of my arguments are invalid… I *have* lost a child. I don’t appreciate you using the loss of another child as part of an Internet argument- especially when it has no correlation to the subject at hand. It’s a cheap shot.
I have answered a number of “would you want anesthetic if” statements in this thread. I’m not going to answer any more. You can read through and get the answers you are looking for. I don’t stutter, and I will confirm again, I believe that God covers those who suffer.
As for not answering immediately: I was asleep. I apologize for not staying awake to (yet again) clarify my stance on whether I would like my family members to be anesthetized when tortured.
As for making abortion more humane: I agree wholeheartedly that it is not anywhere close to humane. But doing this *makes it* humane. It gives people a rational reason to support late term abortion. I’m telling you, there have to be some pro-choice groups who are sitting back waiting for this bomb to drop. Because we are invalidating the push for pain-capable legislation. Everyone, including Fr. Pavone, is having knee-jerk reactions to this. No one is looking at the big picture. This has the possibility of rearing its head in a very, very ugly way.
As for not calling people “pro-aborts” because it is childish- have you ever read anything that pro-choice persons have to say about us? They ridicule our euphemisms. When they call you a “fetus-fetishist”, do you take that seriously? When I look at comment threads under pro-life I am embarrassed when people use terms like this- because they are the most likely to continue with language that is neither loving or welcoming. My God tells me to love my enemies. So I do- and part of loving people is treating them kindly even when they don’t deserve it.
In addition, In Matthew 10:16, we are instructed to be as shrewd as snakes and as harmless as doves. I take that to heart- when I talk to pro-choice persons, I use their own self-identifying language. It works much better at opening the doors to conversion than being abrasive would.
At this point, I have answered each question that has been addressed to me. I would like (well thought out) responses to the number of items that I have presented.
First: the lynching analogy.
As I said above, when there’s a body hanging from a tree the idea of anesthetization before murder becomes ludicrous. We’ve addressed the rape analogy and found it wanting. Let it go… And respond to the lynching analogy.
Second: babies with fetal anomalies are the most common victims of termination at 20+ weeks. This bill is not going to save them. ( I see it possibly creating a dynamic where more families choose abortion, being that I have been in the private spaces with these families. For families in this position, the primary reason for both terminating and continuing a pregnancy revolve around their beliefs about fetal pain. I have met very few families — even the most devout Christian families — who didn’t consider terminating their pregnancy, even if only for a short time. There is enormous pressure from medical professionals to do so. I don’t think anyone here understand the dynamics of this situation clearly, to be honest. This *is* going to be used by doctors to push women into terminating their pregnancy.)
Third: I appreciate Micheals measured response above. I think that his comment about how this may save babies is on target… Except when it comes to babies with birth defects. The upwardly mobile family is, of course, going to choose to anesthetize their baby. The less financially stable are having their late-term abortions paid for via federal funds. They are having “therapeutic” abortions, which are covered using tax dollars. Which means once fetal anesthesia comes into play, they will be using it.
We know that the majority of abortions done at this late time are done for fetal anomalies, so cost to patient is unlikely to be a deciding factor. In addition, I have noted in my carry to term groups (anecdotally of course) that lower income families are more likely to continue the pregnancy than higher income families. I don’t know the relevant statistics for this, but it’s something that needs to be said.
In reading the responses here, I also don’t think everyone understands how these types of abortions are performed. Generally, when a 20+ week abortion is performed, they stop the baby’s heart before they begin the procedure. A mother is also given IV sedation- which crosses the placental barrier.
This only thing that this legislation is going to do, is end the pain-capable movement, which has been the most successful push against abortion since Roe v. Wade.
I see this as having them “on the ropes”. This is *their* trump card, not ours…. And I fear that we are falling into a trap here.
If looking for more information on why this is a very, very misguided effort, see here:
http://savethe1.blogspot.com/2015/04/montana-anesthesia-abortion-bill-its-ok.html
Sarah,
Thank you for your comment, too. I had not realized that abortions due to an identified birth defect are considered therapeutic abortions that many insurances will cover. Do you know if this is only due to medical conditions that are incompatible with extended life outside the womb (such as anencephaly) or does it also extend to “undesirable” populations such as Downs?
I’ll also have to consider further whether or not legislation like this is in opposition to pain-capable legislation or is a complementary measure. On one hand, it doesn’t make sense to both ban abortions after 20 weeks due to the child’s ability to feel pain and require anesthesia for those who are aborted after 20 weeks. On the other hand, it is unclear whether a 20 week pain-capable bill would withstand Supreme Court scrutiny, but an anesthesia bill probably would. If we wouldn’t be able to ban abortions after 20 weeks, it would still be nice to be able to limit them somewhat.
Finally, I think my overall support for legislation like this might not be so much how many babies would be saved by this specific legislation as forcing the pro-choice groups to discuss fetal development and fetal pain. Fetal development is a losing issue for Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and they know it. As we understand more and more about fetal development, as 3D ultrasounds become more prominent, as more expectant parents receive weekly emails from Baby Center about the growth and changes in the little one, the more hollow the pro-choice lobby protests sound. Forcing the pro-choice groups into a debate about fetal development and pain may help nudge our society to a point when it can accept our ultimate goal, which is the end of abortion.
However, I will think more about what you said and wrote.
Micheal-
Unfortunate, therapeutic abortions are performed for almost any reason- which is why so many pro-life persons object to “health of the mother” exclusions. The exclusion would cover “undesirables” as wells as babies with lethal diagnosis. Honestly- most laws that protect the health of the mother are so vague that any physician can use the exception receive a tax-payer funded abortion. Health can be a number of things- you could claim to be depressed over your pregnancy, and receive a therapeutic abortion. New laws are being written that address this issue, and specify that the mother must be in immediate danger, and that no other medical intervention will help her.
I don’t know if I agree with the idea of whether an anesthesia bill will make it past the Supreme Court- if they are unable to legislate on a pain-capable decision, this would mean that they have discounted the notion that an unborn baby feels pain….. Which would make it unlikely that they would even listen to arguments about anesthesia.
I do agree with you that as more people become aware of fetal development, they also shift in their views about abortion. Unfortunately, I see any bill supporting anesthetising unborn children to be seen the same way which death with dignity is seen. It’s going to become the “humane” way to end the lives of children with disabilities. While our abortion views are becoming more conservative, our views on assisted suicide are becoming more liberal. I see a huge correlation between this and physician assisted suicide, and I believe that we are setting a very dangerous precedent here.
If you haven’t already, please read the article I posted above. There are a number of pertinent point made, which I haven’t even mentioned.
“Then why is a well-known pro-life priest urging the Montana Legislature to pass a law that says as long as a pre-born baby is given anesthesia it’s okay to kill the child”
Quotes like the one above are what I don’t like. Fr. Pavone IS NOT and HAS NOT ever said it is okay to kill the child. Fr. Pavone consistently says it is NEVER okay to kill the child. NEVER. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION MARK!
I am reading through some of the articles you posted, Sarah. Thank you for them. Abortion has caused so much pain and violence in our world. We are all loved by Jesus irregardless of how we were conceived and what disabilities we have.
“when there’s a body hanging from a tree the idea of anesthetization before murder becomes ludicrous.”
If there was no way that I could save the person hanging from the tree from death, I would want to do whatever I could to ease his suffering. If I was brave enough, I would try to talk his torturers into at least giving him something for his pain.
Ah. So now I’m not brave enough….
Please answer the very real items that I mentioned, and stop with the grandstanding and negative inferences on my character.
Bottom line, this isn’t going to work. I answered every single objection in my comments. I explained, very clearly, why this is a very bad idea. I posted a very articulate article about why this is (legally) an issue.
If you refuse to acknowledge my comments and the article, then nothing that I say is going to be good enough for you.
[…] pro-life blogger Jill Stanek offered her own excellent response to this type of attack. In her post she points out […]
Micheal-
One item that I forgot to mention. You state that you feel that this legislation could force pro-choice groups to address the issue of fetal pain. I think that this is a valid desire- but it’s already happening. They are addressing it all the way up to the federal level. Pain-capable legislation, which I believe to be much more helpful in this fight, does exactly the same thing. They must defend their position on fetal pain, out in the open. They also open themselves up to the same criticism that this Montana legislation would open them up to, without risking any additional lives.
We don’t need new legislation to draw pro-choice persons into this discussion.
On another, separate note:
The focus is going to immediately move away from “how late is too late, when fetal development is taken into account?” Once we remove the issue of fetal pain, we shift the focus back on the mother’s pain.
That pain is a very real thing.
Most families do not wait 20 weeks to terminate an “unwanted” pregnancy. An unborn child at 20 weeks was most likely a child they anticipated bringing home. These mothers are in pain. And like anyone in pain, they will seek what they believe to be the quickest remedy at hand. Once they can be assured that their unborn child won’t feel pain, they will be more likely to choose termination.
I have spent the last five years of my life “mentoring” women in this position. I am telling you, if this legislation passes, it will be putting babies at risk who may have been carried to term, were it not in place.
Using it to draw out pro-choice persons to clarify their position on fetal pain is not worth losing even one more baby.
I know that it looks like I am heartless, and that I am willing to sacrifice the comfort of an innocent victim in order to make a point- it’s not that. I am genuinely frightened at the implications here. You are risking increasing abortions with this legislation. I’m not the one willing to sacrifice babies, the people who are supporting this are.
The day this goes into affect, is the day that physicians begin convincing women that they can give their unborn children “death with dignity”. We are opening a Pandora’s box with this.
The reason us pro lifers oppose this, and any other kind of so called being more gentle when they abort their children. It makes it more sterile, acceptable, less messy, and gives the appearance that it’s humane…. When it clearly and absolutely is NOT!
No way of repackaging the killing of innocent babies is acceptable, regardless of how it’s sold, branded, or handed off, it’s the taking of a life that has apparently no real rights in the west and throughout the world! Shame on the author for twisting and warping the logic behind why pro lifers do not support this, yet doesn’t it kind of say something if the pro choice crowd is also against it, for entirely different reasons? They are forced to recognize this is a living, feeling human being, something they strive very hard to cover up, this would make it very clear of what it is and it would be bad for business for them if it was mandated…..
Daniel, quoting: “Would you support legislation in 1857 that said as long as the slave was sedated it was okay to lynch him?”
A good many states – half or more of the ones that have the death penalty in the US – offer sedatives to inmates prior to execution.
Sarah, excellent posts.
There are actually a number of peer reviewed studies which show fetal pain is something not be considered.
“Not being considered”? I’m not sure what you meant here.
No doubt, IMO, that most fetuses will develop conscious sensation during a full-term gestation – and I think almost everybody would agree with that.
There are some studies which seem to indicate that not only do unborn children feel pain, but they feel it more intensely due to incomplete formation of nueropathways.
Past a point in gestation – could be – and it makes basic sense to me that babies are thin-skinned, relatively tender and without much padding to protect nerves, so pretty darn sensitive. Yet all the structures necessary for conscious pain perception are still going to have to be in place, developed, connected and operational, even if we say they are to some degree “incomplete,” or there won’t be any real feeling of pain or being “pain-capable.”
For preemie babies – Michael mentioned 25 weeks, which I think is a good example – I’ve long thought that it can be seen that they can become sad from sensation, but I’ve never actually seen a premature baby like that.
Doug-
That was a mistake. It should not say “not”. I didn’t catch that soon enough to edit.
As for the question of whether all of the process which our bodies need to feel pain are in place and properly developed (including being connected with one another), I can send you here:
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com
One item I would like to address in this argument against fetal pain. No one seems to notice that there is a marked contrast between what obstetricians and neonatologists testify to, in regards to this subject.
An obstetrician’s obligation is to the pregnant woman. While most OBs are obviously doing what they do to help bring healthy babies into the world, the majority of them are pro-choice (as evidenced by their membership in the ACOG). In addition, complications are more likely in a birth where defects have been detected, making an adverse event more likely… which could be detrimental to an OBs practice.
A neonatologist’s obligation is to the unborn child. Their area of expertise is with the baby who is at risk for complications. Many of them are also pro-choice, but more often they will testify to their knowledge of fetal pain. Peer reviews studies by neonatologists overwhelmingly show that the unborn do feel pain, and because they don’t have some of the same pain receptors in place that babies who have completed the gestational period, their experience of that pain may be more intense.
When you look at statements made by different physicians regarding fetal pain, you will note that the majority against the concept are by OB’s. The majority for the concept are Neonatologists.
Lastly- the ACOG has been caught before changing their “medical stance” on an issue rated to abortion. They are in no way to be trusted when it comes to their public pronouncements on abortion, especially when it comes to legislation which seeks to limit a woman’s “reproductive rights”. Any information coming from them, is useless.
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com
Sarah, that site is rife with purposefully misleading stuff, including the oft-seen pretense that reflexive response is the same thing as conscious pain perception.
When you look at statements made by different physicians regarding fetal pain, you will note that the majority against the concept are by OB’s. The majority for the concept are Neonatologists.
You may have a valid point about differences in the two types of doctors, but it is really not a matter of “being for fetal pain” or being against it. Rather – it comes down to a debate over when it’s possible, for the fetus. Late enough in gestation, and few if any people are going to say that most fetuses can’t feel pain. Early enough and few if any are going to say that conscious perception is there, even with the “brainwaves at 8 days” crowd notwithstanding.
Doug-
There is a 50/50 chance that reflexive response indicates conscious pain perception. While I will admit that we can not know for certain, you must admit the same. Before anyone is quick to respond to that, remember that for decades we were practicing surgery on neonate a because there was no “scientific evidence” that they could feel pain.
I will fully accept the fact that we can not prove that an unborn child feels pain- but an honest response to that would be that no one can prove that an unborn child does not feel pain, and that given the track record we hold for misjudging neonatal and infant pain, we should maybe lean towards the side of assuming that they do.
I also admit that I posted the link in laziness. I have a life outside of commenting on this thread- but this is way, way too important to walk away from.
As far as 8 weeks GA? I don’t know that I believe that a baby at that stage in development is capable of feeling pain. (what I do know is that the unborn child at 8 weeks is still a human being, and a life worth saving, so I’m the end whether or not they feel pain is irrelevant. I just want to clarify that as I go forward with this statement.) There are a number of studies referenced on this page that are applicable to what we are speaking of (the unborn child at 20 weeks GA). Peer reviewed studies regarding concentrations of cortisol and endorphins (indicators of pain) in amniotic fluid during fetal surgery where no anesthetic was used (so far, they’ve backed this response up to 18 weeks GA). And then further where studies of adults with damage to the cerebral cortex still evidencing a functional pain response. It is not necessary for the entire CNS to be fully functioning to experience pain- and any claim to the contrary, I believe, is due to the fact that pro-choice persons are scrambling to answer the question of fetal pain in a palatable way.
There is ample evidence that the unborn feel pain at least by 18 weeks GA, once you look beyond the ACOG- so they are building their objections on a foundation that claims that *if* an unborn child feels pain, their brain can’t process that pain in a meaningful way.
Thank you for responding in a way that made me clarify my position. While firmly pro-life — no exceptions, no compromise — I am always open to exploring my own ethical beliefs.
Completely forgot-
Whether the physical supports it is of vital importance to this issue. They are the ones reviewing *peer reviewed* studies, and testifying before lawmakers. People aren’t reading medical journals to find their information, they are listening to physicians. And when it comes to “reproductive choice”, people are more inclined to listen to an OB than a neonatologist, even though a neonatologist is more likely to have the applicable information. When a woman asks her physician, who she trusts with her baby’s life, whether her baby feels pain or not, and that doctor says no — she believes them…. And that influences her thoughts when she walks out into the public sphere.
Sarah: There is a 50/50 chance that reflexive response indicates conscious pain perception.
I would say it entirely depends on the individual. Early enough in gestation, and while reflexes will be there, ain’t no way that consciousness is. Late enough and even if there were no reflexes (if that would be possible), it wouldn’t rule out consciousness.
There’s a “bell-shaped curve” of gestation time with a center zone where you and I are going to disagree, and things are really not provable one way or the other. I don’t think it’s a huge deal, really – we’re talking about less than 1% of abortions, and even then – pain or not is at least somewhat of a side issue.
There is more and more scientific evidence available all the time – like the cortisol and endorphin levels you mentioned, and also the good, old-fashioned EEG – which are making things more and more provable. Hey, if the brain waves are there, they’re there, and that would be one good example of proof.
As far as 8 weeks GA? I don’t know that I believe that a baby at that stage in development is capable of feeling pain.
I think this was in response to me mentioning “the brainwaves at 8 days crowd.” Days, not weeks. ;) I brought it up to illustrate that there are crazy people who will believe most anything.
I appreciate your even handed response, and the acceptance that, essentially, we must agree to disagree….
But what stopped my heart was the statement that it isn’t really a big deal, because “we are talking about less than 1% of abortions.”
I am assuming that you haven’t read through all of my posts, because if you had you would have noted that my daughter was one of that 1% which is usually aborted at this late stage.
It absolutely does matter- because every human life counts, not just those we find useful or genetically perfect.
This is *exactly* why this legislation is so dangerous- because it targets such a small minority of unborn children. Because people can assuage their guilt by saying, it hardly matters because it’s only 1%, after all.
Sarah, I’m sorry you took it that way. I applaud the way you discuss things, and I read Beatrix’s story. I think you did the right thing for you (and your husband) and your telling of the story is part of that too.
I didn’t mean that even one single abortion, or not, at 20 weeks or later can’t be a big deal, nor that as a whole “they don’t matter.” I mean that whether or not conscious pain perception is possible is at least a secondary thing by comparison.
Overall, regardless of which side of the argument we are on, I see the “pain or not” thing as vastly a lesser deal than, for example – “a living, human being,” or “the rights, freedom and feelings of the pregnant woman.”
There is the abortion debate as a whole, and then there is the current side-argument about “pain or not” that really only applies to 1% or less of abortions. Thus my saying it’s not really a huge deal.
That Tom Herring quote nailed it.
It’s worth re-reading if the article was skimmed:
“AHA falsely portrays Pavone as someone who simply wants babies sedated before they are butchered. What AHA fails to see is that fighting over legislation to numb the baby’s pain makes headlines and causes clueless Americans to consider the fact that abortion is actually a form of human torture. This is common knowledge to AHA and to pro-lifers, but it is a shocking and horrifying revelation to many ignorant and otherwise disinterested voters.
This legislation is one more call, one more appeal to the conscience of a country that is marked largely by its indifference in the matter. The people are indifferent because, for one thing, nobody has told them about the excruciating pain which babies experience in abortion.
Fr. Pavone is trying to tell them about it. And you choose to mock and deride him for it. You’ve somehow managed to convince yourselves the world is upside down: Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life are the real enemy, joining pro-aborts to attack Pavone is the answer, and babies will be saved if we can make enough memes against pro-lifers.”
Doctor Shmoctor… nobody knows the pain perceptions of a baby. What about emotional pain, like when people have nightmares and become scared, could babies feel that? Nobody knows. The best science these days estimates we only ’employ’ 10% of our brains. Could be a portion of that other 90% was reserved for perception during gestation? Nobody knows. The truth is that science is terribly lacking and unable to provide any real proof one way or the other.
I agree with Mark_Trail that this bill is a plus in the fight against abortion because it causes public discussion about the humanity of the unborn.
“The truth is that science is terribly lacking and unable to provide any real proof one way or the other.”
My opinion is that it is highly likely babies, even those under 20 weeks gestation, can feel intense anguish when they are being aborted.
“The best science these days estimates we only ‘employ’ 10% of our brains.”
That’s actually a myth.
http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/07/24/busting-a-brain-myth#
Seriously JDC. I think it is silly to say we use 100% of our brains. For example people recover from injuries by moving functions from one area of the brain to another, if we were already using 100% then we wouldn’t have the ability to use new areas would we? But like I said previously, the real myth is that we know the intricate workings of the human brain.
We’re learning more about the brain all the time.
http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/07/24/busting-a-brain-myth# = when I see Scarlett Johansson, my mental focus sharpens.
So there. :P
Doug,
Seeing Scarlett may sharpen your focus but it may also actually make you use a smaller portion of you brain.
TS, are you saying all my blood is going to one part of my, uh… brain?
I think JDC is right – it’s not like “we don’t use most of our brains.”
There are times like sleep when different areas will be more or less at rest, but again – this is not “90% of our brain sitting idle all the time.” All parts of our brain have a function, and we know what it is and can monitor it.
Humans have been on the earth for over 100,000 years, and we’ve been doing electroencephalograms for less that 1/10 of 1% of that time, and we’ve already learned a lot. If the brainwaves are not there – they are not there, as with babies earlier in gestation.
Our brains produce power – enough to run a small lightbulb, 10 to 20+ watts. There are increases and decreases in power – corresponding to brain activity levels.
“All parts of our brain have a function, and we know what it is and can monitor it.”
It’s not that I am saying our brains are 90% dormant. Even though you can measure activity in the parts we are using, we are only using those parts of the brain to a fraction of their capacity/capability. And two people that are using the same certain part of their brain (monitored as electrical energy) can experience very different levels of cognitive function in that same area.
” If the brainwaves are not there – they are not there, as with babies earlier in gestation.”
People who have been diagnosed in vegetative states because of lack of measurable electrical activity in their brains have come out their coma and told people they were cognizant of what people around them were doing during the periods of supposed measured brain ‘inactivity’.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/01/13/meet-the-man-who-spent-12-years-trapped-inside-his-body-watching-barney-reruns/
“There are times like sleep when different areas will be more or less at rest,”
Could that be the state of unborn babies brains at 16 weeks?
Could that be the state of unborn babies brains at 16 weeks?
TS, no – we know about the types of brainwaves, i.e. alpha, beta, theta and delta and how they correspond to sleep, what with the degree of synchronicity (“synchronousness* didn’t sound right), etc., and a sleeping brain is much different from a brain with no consciousness.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/01/13/meet-the-man-who-spent-12-years-trapped-inside-his-body-watching-barney-reruns/
-TS, that guy was mute and paralyzed, but not brain dead – he could think and reason. He was, of course, correct in hating Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Everybody should hate Barney, and if you ever see Barney anywhere, make sure to knock him down and kick him.
Anyway, if an EEG had been done on him – that would have been plain to see. No surprises, no “magic” or mumbo-jumbo about it.
You say, lack of measurable electrical activity in their brains, but that is just not the deal.
It’s not that I am saying our brains are 90% dormant. Even though you can measure activity in the parts we are using, we are only using those parts of the brain to a fraction of their capacity/capability.
That’s still the same old myth, and it’s really not true.
And two people that are using the same certain part of their brain (monitored as electrical energy) can experience very different levels of cognitive function in that same area.
Well sure, because different people are different. Einstein had a bigger-than-normal brain area that deals with spatial cognizance and mathematics, for example. Doesn’t mean that he or anybody else was only using 10% of their power.
Doug, I agree that they probably would have found brain activity on Martin Pistorius had they tested over that 12 year period. But they did test prior to subjecting him to Barney reruns for twelve years and deemed him brain dead at that time. And we now know that people in comatose states show little to no brain activity for periods of time and later show perceivable brain activity. Unborn babies are the same in that respect. And when the brain is able to perceive things internally (as opposed to it’s ability to perceive external stimuli) is still an unknown.
The Barney thing is just about beyond belief – I mean, if somebody had purposefully devised a severe torture method…. :P
In the article, I don’t see where he was deemed brain dead.
“The rest of the world thought Pistorius was a vegetable, according to NPR.”
That’s all I saw. His brain would have had electrical activity much like a normal one, from what I can tell.
I would have to agree that recovery from ‘brain death’ is impossible. But the criteria they use to declare brain death has a proven track-record of failures. People have recovered from diagnosis of brain death declared because there was no blood flow to the brain etc..
It is a grey matter :)
I guess I would walk that back. Who is to say when electrical brain activity could not spontatneousely start?
Who is to say when electrical brain activity could not spontatneousely start?
Well, Truthseeker, we can’t prove that a rock isn’t singing ditties to itself, either. ;)
Hmmm…. who coined the term ” immediatists”
That would be AHA. Probably because it sounds nicer than “those AHA whackos”, the more accurate term.
immediatists
Same letters as “mistiest maid.”
Open Source Blog – Open source at Google with news concerning Google‘s open source jobs and also
programs.