Abortion, Again: Do Babies Feel Pain?

RW News ^ | April 20, 2010 | Melissa Clouthier

[NYer]

Nebraska heats this topic up again. Embarrassed about being the late-term abortion capital of the United States, Nebraska changed the law:

Can an unborn child feel pain?

That question will dominate the abortion debate in America for the next several years thanks to Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska. Last week, Heineman signed the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act into law, banning abortions in Nebraska at and after 20 weeks based on growing scientific evidence that an unborn child at that age can feel pain.

The legislation was enacted as a defensive measure. After the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, a physician named LeRoy Carhart declared his intention to carry on Tiller's work at his Bellevue, Neb., clinic. State legislators did not want Nebraska to become the country's late-term abortion capital -- so they voted 44-5 to stop him.

The new law will probably spark a Supreme Court showdown, because it directly challenges one of the key tenets of Roe v. Wade -- that "viability" (the point at which an unborn child can survive outside the womb, generally held to be at 22 to 24 weeks) is the threshold at which states can ban abortion. In defending the law, Nebraska will ask the high court to take into account scientific research since Roe and push the legal threshold back further.

I have written about this before, from a very personal place. My sons were born at 24 weeks, could feel pain, and felt pain more than the doctors and nurses wanted to admit. Not long after my son left the NICU, the hospital changed a policy on heel sticks (given repeatedly and daily without anesthesia) because they were so painful to the child.

This was a "duh" decision to me: I saw my sons silently scream and writhe to get away (they were intubated) every day during the procedure. Of course they felt pain. Only a moron couldn't see that self-evident fact.

Do babies feel pain en utero? Yes. For years, doctors have noted that babies avoid ultrasound. No one quite knows why, but it's suspected that the ultrasound waves are at the very least, uncomfortable to them. So, ultrasounds, while performed routinely, are carefully meted out by the best professionals, because they do know that ultrasounds stunt growth and interfere in other ways. If the baby avoids it, there must be a reason.

My thought is that unborn babies are more, not less, sensitive to pain. It just makes sense. Their nervous systems are raw and unrefined. They live in a fluid-filled cushion bubble for heaven's sake. I figure it's because the insulation deadens the sensations--the sound, touch, sight, etc.--needfully. The experiences would be too intense otherwise.

The fact is, it makes sense that these tiny humans feel acutely. And anyone who has seen a tiny baby, with a beating heart, cannot fathom that they don't feel pain. It is an exercise in denial to haughtily imagine that they are little lumps of protoplasm feeling, learning, expressing nothing.

It is inconvenient to imagine a baby as a mini-human. If the baby is a mini-human, the baby has civil rights and should be protected.

As the science gets more refined, I expect that people are going to be horrified at what has happened to unborn children. Or, they'll sink deeper into their denial--no one wants to perceive himself as a murderer, little less a pain-inflicting murderer.

[NYer]

Ping!

[GSP.FAN]

YES....

http://www.silentscream.org/

[Navy Patriot]

Melissa Clouthier is exactly right in this article, although she doesn’t toot her own horn in her writing, she is quite qualified as she is a MD.

[avoth]

Although I’m a Conservative, I have no problem with abortion as long as I’m not paying for it for a bunch of reasons.

So I have a few questions for the anti-abortion crowd:

Are any of you old enough to recall the days when young girls got their abortions in the back alley?
Would you like to return to those days?
Is there some other way to deal with behavior that we find morally reprehensible because your current methods not only aren’t working, they’re backfiring and giving our enemies ammunition to use against us?

Denouncing them, violence against them, etc., doesn’t work. And taking action after they’re already pregnant and contemplating/going for an abortion, e.g., urging them to deliver their babies and give them up for adoption, is like locking the barn door after the horse has left.

The anti-abortion crowd needs better solutions and more self-control because it’s not achieving the results it truly wants, i.e., people to act more responsibly regarding sex and conception.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Well, in my opinion, you lack the facts concerning the status of the unborn person as well as the application of constitutional principles to that person. Either that or you fine with whoever might be killed as long as it doesn’t cost you money. I hope it’s not the latter because that would require a very shallow person.

[NYer]

Are any of you old enough to recall the days when young girls got their abortions in the back alley? Would you like to return to those days?

That is one of the most bogus arguments given to support legalized abortion.

The Centers for Disease Control counted 386 safe and legal abortion deaths during the period 1972 - 2003. Their count doesn't include women who died because their abortions fatally delayed the diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy. Nor does it count those women whose abortions, unbeknownst to them, turned out to be illegal by the CDC's definitions, such as Myrta Baptiste, whose abortionist's medical license was suspended at the time of her abortion.

Diane Adams, 28, of the U.S. Virgin Islands, died in 1992
Eurice Agbagaa, 26, left hemorrhaging in the care of a receptionist, died in 1989
Leigh Ann Alford, 34, died at National Abortion Federation member clinic in 2003
Demetrice Andrews, 22, died from abortion complications in 1988
Mickey Apodaca, 28, whose abortionist was out on bail while challenging a murder conviction, died in 1984
Gloria Aponte, 20, whose NAF member abortionist allowed his receptionist to administer general anesthesia, died in 1986
Charisse Ards, 20, died of post-abortion pelvic infection in 1989
Barbara Auerbach, 38, died from complications of a bowel obstruction caused by her abortion in 1981
KB, age 19, was charted at "pink, alert, responsive" as she died in 1988
Jacqueline Bailey, 29, died from uterine rupture in 1977 Brenda Banks, 35, bled to death in 1989
Myrta Baptiste, 26, died from what the Centers for Disease Control classified as an "illegal" abortion in 1989
Lisa Bardsley, 26, was sent to her motel room, hemorrhaging from internal lacerations that killed her in 1995
Junette Barnes, 27, bled to death in 1988
Deanna Bell, 13, died from an "uneventful" abortion in 1992
Brenda Benton, 35, died of overwhelming septicemia in 1987
Rosario Bermeo, 30, went into cardiac arrest and died in 1983
Janet Blaum, 37, died of anesthesia complications in 1974
Cassandra Bleavins, 20, bled to death in 1971
Linda Boom, 35, died from complications of an obsolete abortion technique in 1995
Diane Boyd, 19, a mentally disabled rape victim, died 1981
Mary Bradley, 41, died from abortion complications in 1985
Dorothy Brant, 22, died of abortion complications in 1986
Dorothy Brown, 37, died within hours of her abortion in 1974
Chanelle Bryant, 22, died after getting abortion drugs from a Family Planning Associates clinic in 2004
Rest of the list

And taking action after they’re already pregnant and contemplating/going for an abortion, e.g., urging them to deliver their babies and give them up for adoption, is like locking the barn door after the horse has left.

Pregnancy outside of marriage has been around since the beginning of time. Abortion is the solution proferred by moral relativists. Then Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this in the homily he delivered to the Cardinals just before they were sequestered in the conclave that elected him pope.

Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

The anti-abortion crowd needs better solutions and more self-control because it’s not achieving the results it truly wants, i.e., people to act more responsibly regarding sex and conception.

The answer is quite simple: abstinence. It works all the time. That society continues to adopt the relativist approach, like you, should not require that unborn children be sacrificed on the human altar of egotism.

[Mandingo Conservative]

Sorry Avoth, but if you are a conservative and you believe in abortion, you ain`t no conservative.

[agere_contra]

urging them to deliver their babies and give them up for adoption, is like locking the barn door after the horse has left.

What on earth? Why would pro-Lifers have a problem with a baby being born?

It's quite simple. Pro-Lifers want to protect children from being killed. That's it. That's the agenda.

Adoption is a perfectly natural recourse. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby:- there will always be more than enough childless couples who are eager to look after these children.

[vpintheak]

All life is sacred from conception. PERIOD.

[Servant of the Cross]

when young girls got their abortions in the back alley????!!!!

(and I thought only DUer's were this ignorant. You have been duped).

Better solutions? How about advanced medical technology ...

Baby Samuel

[avoth]

“Well, in my opinion, you lack the facts concerning the status of the unborn person as well as the application of constitutional principles to that person.”

Not an answer to any of my questions, but thanks for contributing.

“Either that or you fine with whoever might be killed as long as it doesn’t cost you money. I hope it’s not the latter because that would require a very shallow person.”

Whatever.

[avoth]

“That is one of the most bogus arguments given to support legalized abortion. “

You didn’t answer my question, but thanks anyway.

“Pregnancy outside of marriage has been around since the beginning of time. Abortion is the solution proferred by moral relativists. Then Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this in the homily he delivered to the Cardinals just before they were sequestered in the conclave that elected him pope. “

Again, not the point.

“Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”

So you’re happy with the current environment where you’re the moral absolutionist and everyone who questions your position is a relativist?

“The answer is quite simple: abstinence. It works all the time.”

Yes, I can see how it’s working.

“That society continues to adopt the relativist approach, like you, should not require that unborn children be sacrificed on the human altar of egotism.”

Thanks for nothing.

[avoth]

“Sorry Avoth, but if you are a conservative and you believe in abortion, you ain`t no conservative.”

I’m a Conservative who recognizes that the situation we’ve got now isn’t going to be ended anytime soon and will probably get worse before it gets better. Do I believe in abortion? Yes, I do - when the mother’s life is endangered by her pregnancy. You feel that the mother should die rather than get an abortion?

[avoth]

“What on earth? Why would pro-Lifers have a problem with a baby being born?”

They wouldn’t. But that’s not the point.

“Adoption is a perfectly natural recourse. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby:- there will always be more than enough childless couples who are eager to look after these children. “

Again, not the point. A woman is pregnant and decides to get an abortion. So block the door to the clinic while trying to get her to carry the baby to term and give him/her up for adoption....that’s working for you?

[avoth]

No, I haven’t been duped. But thanks anyway.

[Servant of the Cross]

I suppose I should be pleased. At least I didn't get the lame responses of "you didn't answer my question" or "whatever".

IMHO, your fellow FReepers are correct in labeling you "shallow" and stating that if "you believe in abortion, you ain't no conservative."

[Emmett McCarthy]

You present the same lame arguments that the pro-abort folks do - basically that somehow the world as it exists must be corrected before we stop the wanton slaughter of the unborn. I don’t know whether you’ve been “duped” or not as one poster suggested, but at least you have been made aware that folks here aren’t duped by your circular arguments.

[TheWriterTX]

Are any of you old enough to recall the days when young girls got their abortions in the back alley?

* My great grandmother almost died from an illegal abortion. The family was very poor and she was afraid they would not be able to provide for the child. This nearly tore the family apart, as my great grandfather wanted the child.

* Failure to provide on the part of the poor is not the issue facing the majority of women today. There is a huge safety net to provide for them, and this is not a barrier to delivering a baby.

Would you like to return to those days?

* See above. A number of studies done on this issue point to pressure by the father of the child as being the primary reason many women chose an abortion. Strong women, or women in loving relationships, are far less likely to consider an abortion than those in casual or destructive relationships.

Is there some other way to deal with behavior that we find morally reprehensible because your current methods not only aren’t working, they’re backfiring and giving our enemies ammunition to use against us?

* Your question presumes facts not in evidence. What methods are you referring to, and what ammunition?

* Your question also presumes that changes in social mores and norms have had no direct impact on how abortion is perceived, but that the failure to stop abortions somehow rests solely on the pro-life movement. This is false.

* Moral relativists have tried repeatedly to diminish the moral impact of abortion (and other issues) by shifting the debate from "morality" to "legality." An entire generation has been reared with the belief that if it's not illegal, it's okay (or even, if it's illegal, but you don't get caught, it's okay).

* Moral relativists have already repeatedly shifted the debate by "dehumanizing" the unborn child. This tactic is very effective (and is used through the military) to make it easier to be the instrument of death for another human being.

* Bills such as this are the perfect tool to combat both, by not only drawing another legal barrier to abortion, but emphasizing the very human quality (experiencing pain) into the debate.

* Moreover, the frequency of abortions in the United States did not happen instantaneously following Roe V. Wade. First, the law changed; then hearts and minds. This is ultimately how the pro-life movement can swing the pendulum back towards the sanctity of life; by law, then hearts and minds.

[NYer]

You didn’t answer my question, but thanks anyway

Sure I did and supported it with facts.

So you’re happy with the current environment where you’re the moral absolutionist and everyone who questions your position is a relativist?

Without moral absolutes, there is chaos. That is what we see exhibited in the world around us when people abandon those norms.

Yes, I can see how it’s working.

Uganda Winning the Battle Against AIDS — Using Abstinence