Shock: NARAL sends email claiming “babies” in utero feel pain
by Kelli
The email was signed by a NARAL supporter, Dana Weinstein, asking for donations to NARAL to fight HR 36, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks (5 months). She writes, “When I was more than 20 weeks pregnant, my doctor discovered our baby had horrifying severe fetal anomalies that could not have been discovered earlier in pregnancy.”
It’s strange enough to see NARAL using the term “baby” to describe the “products of conception” that the pro-abortion movement has worked so hard to dehumanize — to the point that the media now frequently refer to abandoned babies as “fetuses.”
But even stranger is what comes next. Weinstein writes, “If I’d carried our wanted and loved baby to term, she would have survived only for a short time, in a world of immense suffering. So we chose to end our baby’s pain.”
Again, the word “baby” — even “loved baby,” as if it were possible for this valueless being in the womb to be the proper object for human love. But even more shocking is the admission that children in the womb can feel pain.
The pro-abortion lobby has declared for years that fetuses cannot feel pain, or at least not until much later in pregnancy than 20 weeks. They’ve called it “junk science” to claim otherwise (despite the fact that perinatal surgeons routinely use anesthesia when operating on unborn children).
But now Dana Weinstein is insisting that she and her husband needed to abort their child to end its pain!…
I understand why NARAL is breaking message here. It would be a heartless, unsympathetic parent who would talk about their “fetus” being diagnosed with health problems. And sounds a lot better to talk about “ending” the pain that a baby is supposedly in right now, than killing the child to keep it from feeling pain later.
But NARAL doesn’t get to have it both ways.
~ Eric Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League, June 4
[HT: Life Site News; image via babyjordi.blogspot.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.
What a pathetic attempt at making something out of nothing.
“If I’d carried our wanted and loved baby to term, she would have survived only for a short time, in a world of immense suffering. So we chose to end our baby’s pain.” – yes, the fetus would have suffered immensely at and after birth, so they decided to prevent that.
And if she was indicating a 20 week fetus can feel pain she’s got it wrong.
‘Baby’ gets bandied around so much it no longer indicative of any pre or post birth age.
The AMA says the 20 week claim is junk science.
It would be a heartless, unsympathetic parent who would talk about their “fetus” being diagnosed with health problems. – why? Is ‘fetus’ not the appropriate word?
You’re all over the place with this one.
Well said, Eric.
So… Fantasy. My friend.
Your saying the children can’t feel pain at twenty weeks. Is NARAL wrong here to say the child was feeling pain?
NARAL hardly mentions it but Weinstein’s abortion was at 31 weeks. They know that once any normal person hears that they start to think, “Why not deliver the child prematurely and provide the child with pain medication” if reducing the child’s pain was the priority. Of course, eliminating the pain wasn’t the priority. Killing the child was.
I have very mixed feelings toward parents who succumbed to the pressure to abort, especially so late term. I think doctors do push them to terminate, because they want to avoid complicated births and possible lawsuits. How many children have been killed for this reason? I know that many parents must feel tremendous pain and guilt afterward. But what cynical message are the doctors and parents sending, “Be nearly perfect or we’ll snuff you” ??
What gets me is when doctors claim to know with 100% certainty what outcomes will be. I have a friend whose baby was diagnosed with spina bifida at 20 weeks. Her doctors pressured her to abort, saying that he would be paralyzed his entire life, would have to have a catheter his entire life, his quality of life would be terrible, etc. They said these things as if they were 100% certain. She and her husband refused to abort, however. The very next week they had another ultrasound and saw him kicking his legs. Today he’s a rambunctious toddler who can walk with the aid of a walker. No doctor who made the original claims and pressured her to abort ever apologized or admitted they’d been wrong about her son’s prognosis.
“If I dug his grave every time one of you geniuses told me he was going to die, I would be eating … chop suey in China by now!”
They (the parents) ended their pain, and without a moral compass, that’s an easy one to choose first.
So basically, their child could have been perfectly healthy and pain-free, but if there is a POSSIBLE risk, not a risk, but the merest semblence of a possibility of a risk, how medicine in America is, the childs tortuous abortion could be seen as a Godsend EVEN IF the child is *wanted* and in *perfect* health. Ireland has had the best global reputation for delivering healthy babies. I wonder what Irish dr’s would have said about Weinstien’s small fetus??? She could have had another healthy baby, but … she’s pro-abortion.
Since the extent of your imaginary friend’s existence doesn’t appear to run to writing stuff (I can’t vouch for what they might be saying in your head), I’ll help you out Angles.
Your saying the children can’t feel pain at twenty weeks. – the relevant experts in the field have said that fetuses can’t feel pain at twenty weeks.
Is NARAL wrong here to say the child was feeling pain? – NARAL didn’t say the fetus was feeling pain. One woman spoke of her experience. She did so from a personal perspective, not spruiking from a medical dictionary.
Reality,
It irks me so grievously to think of all the pain that unborn babies go through while being assaulted by all the Satanic ways you like commit abortion. Is it un-Christian that it irks me slightly less (due to a sense of poetic justice) to envision you submersed in a pool of highly alkaline saline solution gasping in water that fills your lungs and burns you from the inside out.
It irks me so grievously to think of all the pain that unborn babies go through – perhaps the very few fetuses being aborted beyond 28 weeks could have an anesthetic administered. Under 28 weeks, no pain.
while being assaulted by all the Satanic ways you like commit abortion. – no such methodology as ‘satanic’, for anything. I don’t conduct abortions.
Is it un-Christian that it irks me slightly less (due to a sense of poetic justice) to envision you submersed in a pool of highly alkaline saline solution gasping in water that fills your lungs and burns you from the inside out. – no, I don’t find that un-christian in the least. Whatever rocks your boat.
“If I’d carried our wanted and loved baby to term, she would have survived only for a short time, in a world of immense suffering. So we chose to end our baby’s pain.”
Talking about what would have occurred, later on.
“Under 28 weeks, no pain.”
Reality, welcome to the new world of science where we know your spiel is just ignorant bs. You are no more smarter than the pro-aborts from decades ago who claimed that babies are no more than a clump of cells etc. There have been babies born at 22 weeks who survived.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/21/youngest-surviving-premature-baby-leaves-hospital/
If baby Frieda cried when she got stuck with a needle or felt discomfort idealogues like you would still just ignore reality and leave her suffer. Your moniker is perfect for a progressive cause in general progressives like to argue using the tactic of making claims that go completely opposite of reality and hoping nobody enough people don’t know the truth so they might actually believe your bs. Obama has that technique mastered.
Doug is just a little smarter than you so he will pick an age just before any preemies have survived outside the womb and claim that is the age where they can’t feel any pain.
welcome to the new world of science where we know your spiel is just ignorant bs. – apparently the only ignorance is your knowledge of science. THE scientists have said 28 weeks, I did not unilaterally declare it thus. And you have no science demonstrating otherwise.
There have been babies born at 22 weeks who survived. – and?
If baby Frieda cried when she got stuck with a needle or felt discomfort idealogues like you would still just ignore reality and leave her suffer. – if? Frogs legs?
Your moniker is perfect for a progressive cause in general progressives like to argue using the tactic of making claims that go completely opposite of reality and hoping nobody enough people don’t know the truth so they might actually believe your bs. – and your moniker is perfect, except maybe you should preface it with ‘failed’. “go completely opposite of reality and hoping nobody enough people don’t know the truth” Huh?
Obama has that technique mastered. – nah, some people are just easily confused.
Doug may well be a little smarter than me, however….. :-)
“if? Frogs legs?”
Huh, comparing a crying baby to frog legs??? there is no science in that reply but I didn’t expect any.
Seriously, The baby is outside the womb reacting to stimuli (including pain) and you defend your position with a frog leg analogy???
There’s more science in my reply than your original comment.
“Reacting to stimuli” – study some basic biology truthseeker.
Yes Reality, doctors and people of science watch how babies behave and how babies react to stimuli in order to asses a baby’s pain level. Your idea that baby’s don’t feel pain is archaic.
It is science that one of the ways to relieve pain (including psychological pain) is to provide the stimulus of holding and comforting the baby.
Even a minimally developed nervous system allows a human to sense their arms getting ripped off at the shoulder.
doctors and people of science watch how babies behave and how babies react to stimuli in order to asses a baby’s pain level. – they do a whole lot more than just observe. The science goes much further than that. For babies or fetuses. Even adults.
Your idea that baby’s don’t feel pain is archaic. – if anything is archaic it’s where your knowledge and understanding of the science involved stops. People who have actual scientific knowledge in the field have said that fetuses under 28 weeks do not experience pain. You cannot dispute that on any meaningful level.
It is science that one of the ways to relieve pain (including psychological pain) is to provide the stimulus of holding and comforting the baby – and?
Even a minimally developed nervous system allows a human to sense their arms getting ripped off at the shoulder. – you really are out of your depth.
IMO reality is a paid liberal hack.
Truthseeker: Doug is just a little smarter than you so he will pick an age just before any preemies have survived outside the womb and claim that is the age where they can’t feel any pain.
TS, you rascal. ?(????)
There sure is a lot of arguing about this.
Actually, I have brought up preemies – to Reality, no less, since it’s hard for me to believe there is no feeling pain there. Now, I have never seen one, and perhaps I am picturing a really early preemie (micropreemie) as different than they actually are.
I don’t think “survival or not” is really the deal. The 50/50 point is now at 24 weeks gestation – for “first world” countries and in places where there are dedicated facilities for preemie care. Great strides have been made in preemie care in the last few decades, but we’re up against the fact that the lungs are not developed enough for life outside the womb until somewhere around 21, 22, 23 weeks.
http://preemiehelp.com/about-preemies/preemie-facts-a-figures/preemie-outcomes/outcomes-by-gestational-age
From what I can tell, looks like babies cannot cry until 29 weeks gestational age. This would not be the end-all of the pain debate, of course. I’d say it matters just how we define “pain” and how we would note that it’s there.
There are extreme opinions on both sides of the “pain” deal. I will say that there are quite a few silly state legislators who are not well-informed enough on the issue to not mistake reflexive motion for conscious response.
That is my opinion of Ex-RINO. Every kind word or post is ALWAYS followed with a ‘but’ full of progressive crap.
Doug,
After baby Frieda was born at 21 weeks do you think they could have used forceps to rip her arms and legs off (committed the ‘procedure’ known as abortion on her) and she would have felt no pain while they did it?
TS, while I’m not sure, I don’t think so – that is just so early in gestational age.
There is also a difference between before birth and afterwards – as far as I know, regardless of gestational age (though I could see there being a lower limit), in that there is a real “waking up” of the brain at birth. I’m sure that for most unborn babies, late enough in gestation, there is consciousness, but it’s somewhat like being asleep, with the waking coming at birth.
Doug,
What I would suggest to you is that the same ‘waking’ from a naturally induced state of slumber can and would occur inside the womb if the baby is assaulted. Dude, even people in deep REM sleep would wake up if you started jabbing with forceps and tearing their limbs off.
“TS, you rascal. ?(????)”
Speaking of rascals…I haven’t seen ‘rasqual’ post on here in quite some time.
What I would suggest to you is that the same ‘waking’ from a naturally induced state of slumber can and would occur inside the womb if the baby is assaulted. Dude, even people in deep REM sleep would wake up if you started jabbing with forceps and tearing their limbs off.
I don’t think so, Truthseeker. Prior to birth, the consciousness is not the same as being born and being asleep. There is profound physiological and mental change at birth. Not saying that “unborn babies can never feel pain,” but I am saying that things are not the same, as you propose.
As for unborn babies in the gestational weeks in the 20s (which is what the debate really seems to be about, to me) I think the question remains – can they really, consciously, feel pain?
Do you consider these babies at 21 weeks alive outside the womb as conscious persons?
Doug,
When a human senses fear the body produces chemicals that cause the heart to race. When the hired killer commits abortion it is well documented that the baby’s heart races and that the baby reacts to try and avoid getting torn to pieces.
TS: Do you consider these babies at 21 weeks alive outside the womb as conscious persons?
Truthseeker, good question. Legal personhood is definitely there, but I’m not sure about consciousness. For such a ‘micropreemie,’ I don’t know what mentality is there, if any can really be said to be present, inside or outside the womb.
When a human senses fear the body produces chemicals that cause the heart to race.
How about if we say that certain stimuli can produce fear? Yes, fear is a physical response – versus anxiety, which is more mental and which tends to be longer-lasting. The brain’s “alarm box” is the amygdala, and it’s there that stimuli come in from other parts of the brain.
The thalamus is like a “shotgun” – it blasts away quickly but with less precision, and hits the amygdala with signals after sensory information is taken in. You see a snake in the grass near you – heartrate speeds up, hormones like adrenaline get dumped into the bloodstream, darn near instantaneously. That’s the thalamus and amygdala at work.
The prefrontal cortex is also sending signals to the amygdala, with more precision – the “fight or flight” impulse kicks in, and for most of us it’s “flight” and we are jumping and running away. This is the brain reacting to perceived danger and deciding on a course of action. Still very fast.
For this stuff to work, there obviously has to be a certain degree of development, operation and connectedness.
There are huge changes to the brain, normally, during the weeks in the 20s, and I don’t think we can just pronounce how “the baby” acts, as if it’s one monolithic deal.
it is well documented that the baby’s heart races and that the baby reacts to try and avoid getting torn to pieces.
I would say it depends on the gestational age. There is often the tendency to mistake reflexive motion for conscious response, to start with.
If the necessary parts of the brain and the entire nervous system are present, developed, operational and connected enough, for the 21 week fetus, then perhaps it is as you say – at least as far as the heart speeding up. As far as a conscious response of “trying to get away,” I really doubt that – again, we cannot generalize about all unborn babies – development and gestational age make all the difference here.
“As far as a conscious response of “trying to get away,” I really doubt that – again, we cannot generalize about all unborn babies – development and gestational age make all the difference here.”
Development and gestational age do make all the difference. And baby Frieda had everything sufficiently developed for any non-partisan person to understand baby Frieda would react with not just just reflexive fear but also learned behavior to avoid any forceps that tried repeatedly to tear off her limbs. And if she were to be disembodied she would certainly react in ways consistent with those who feel pain.
Truthseeker: Development and gestational age do make all the difference. And baby Frieda had everything sufficiently developed for any non-partisan person to understand baby Frieda would react with not just just reflexive fear but also learned behavior to avoid any forceps that tried repeatedly to tear off her limbs. And if she were to be disembodied she would certainly react in ways consistent with those who feel pain.
TS, you may want to think that, but you really don’t know that. “Learned behavior” – are you nuts? : P