Skip to comments.An Uncomfortable Truth: The Pain of the Unborn
Posted on 01/24/2007 10:29:08 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
Warning: The following commentary includes graphic descriptions that may not be suitable for children or sensitive readers.
Undoubtedly many of the great evils of our times have been committed because the cries of the victims were not heardnot heard by those who sat by, comfortably ignorant of the horrors around them. In early nineteenth-century England, few citizens had any real understanding that the lump of sugar they dropped in their afternoon tea was made at the high price of human bondage. The screams of men and women branded or whipped on West Indies sugar plantations were not heard in the fashionable parlors of England. Not until, that is, the great Christian statesman William Wilberforce launched his crusade against the slave trade.
Today, some two hundred years later, there are victims whose agony our ears will never hear. These are the unborn victims of abortion.
While the unborn do not have a voice to scream, science tells us that by twenty weeks a child in the womb is capable of feeling pain. Dr. Sunny Anand, director of the Pain Neurobiology Laboratory at Arkansas Childrens Hospital Research Institute, testified before Congress and said: The pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children . . . the highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero from twenty to thirty weeks gestation. Sobering testimony.
To make matters worse, the biological mechanisms that inhibit the experience of pain do not begin to develop until weeks thirty to thirty-two.
Yet ironically, an unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock. In a slaughterhouse, a method of slaughter is deemed legally humane only if, as the hundred-year-old law states, all animals are rendered insensible to pain . . . By contrast, D&E abortions, performed as late as twenty-four weeks, involve the dismemberment of the unborn child by a pair of sharp metal forceps. Instillation methods of abortion replace up to one cup of amniotic fluid with concentrated salt solution, which the unborn child inhales as the salt burns his or her skin. The child lives in this condition up to an hour.
These things are uncomfortable to hear and to speak about. That is precisely the point. We should not be comfortable in a society where such things exist and where we have the power to influence change. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is scheduled to be re-introduced into this Congress. This legislation would require that women seeking abortions are fully informed of the pain that their unborn baby feels when he or she is aborted twenty weeks or more after fertilization. If that knowledge does not deter the mother in what has come to be reduced to a mere choice, she must be offered the opportunity to give the unborn child drugs to ease his or her pain.
Pro-abortion advocates dreadfully fear this legislation. It brings to light the difficult questions they do not want to confront, like why livestock have more rights than an unborn child. Questions like these, like the cries of victims, are hard to forget once they have shaken us from the comfort of our parlor chairs.
PPOA runs a DVD non-stop in it's waiting rooms to ease the "patients" mind while waiting to kill her baby ,, they use the Ramones "I wanna be sedated" during the part where they are presenting themselves as saviours to the distraught woman... 20 minutes later "problem solved" and the patient is smiling in the recovery room...
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
There is a very strong anesthetic (versed; sedative-hypnotic) used quite often which creates an amnesia effect, so that not only does the woman have pain blockage, she can lose a significant period (sometimes days) of memories associated with the killing episode.
Abortion does not make pregnant women un-pregnant; abortion just makes them mothers of dead babies.
Got a source on that?
Then ignore him and respond to me; I'm the one who asked the question. Read the article and tell me why exactly I'm a hypocrite for caring. Ya wanna paint with a broad brush, ya oughtta back your words up.
I'm curious, why the C-section? It's quite a bit more dangerous than a vaginal birth. Not only that, but complications are more myriad and more likely from a c-section as well. Both of those in addition to the fact that c-sections are disfiguring and vaginal births aren't.
Hello Mr. Silverback.
You are certainly entitled to care about it (abortion), and thanks for writing.
My responses are as follows:
1) If women have general property rights too, meaning property rights to their own bodies, do they not have a say or any rights to avoid the risks of pregnancy, which DO exist.
2) Many pro-lifers are avid hand gun owners - and users. They wouldn't hesitate to use the gun on someone, a HUMAN, if they faced a home invasion robbery. That is taking a life, isnt it. Since a fetus IS an unintended (UNWANTED) intruder (if the birth control you follow fails), a fetus represents an "intruder" in the body of a woman, in that case. If you allow that a woman is the landlord of her own body, why not let her as the owner, protect her own biological resources, at least in the first trimester?
3) I know you are going to claim that a home-invasion robber is not the same as a fetus, so therefore you ARE entitled to exercise your 2nd amendment rights against a home invader. The fetus (unborn child) is in fact an "innocent" victim in your opinion, and therefore -- there is no parity between an abortion and gun-involved self-defense. That is the usual response I get. I disagree with that assumption -- a person who is robbing you may not be evil or intending malice. He may simply be in a desperate state, due to extreme sudden poverty due to a natural disaster such as hurricane, and is just searching for food. Where is your Christian charity toward a brother in need? It is not very Christian of you to shoot him, if he is not acting out of malice, but is in fact an innocent victim of a severe natural disaster, such as bad weather. But we protect ourselves anyway, don't we. We are all self-preserving, we all exercise some self-defensive measures. We put locks on our doors, we use car keys, we password protect our accounts, we use birth control, and we give some - BUT NOT ALL of our income or wealth to charity.
4) As to "Which ranks more highly, humans or animals?" It depends on the human. I would defend myself against animals and humans. I don't go around killing animals, or humans, unless attacked. Which has more value? Obviously, it depends on the human. If someone was robbing or attempting to mutilate my horses, I would "have at" them, and protect my property (the animals).
I happen to be pro-2nd amendment, pro-choice (abortion), and pro-death penalty. I am also a vegetarian, but would kill rats in my attic, if they were interfering with my property rights & private property (eating the wiring & destroying the AC system). If I were starving, it would be a tough call. I would not eat my own pets, but Id certainly eat insects and fish, stuff like that.
I hope this helps, - take care,
But first, let's deal with the hypothetical burglar who might be desperate because of a natural disaster. Well, if said man knocks on my front door, I'll share my food with him. Funny how you expect me to have mercy on this stranger whose trouble is no fault of my own, but you think a woman should be able to kill someone who (with rare exception) exists solely because of her willing actions. Also, if this desperate individual were to invade my home in search of food and get killed, it would be a tragic mistake. But the woman who kills her child in the womb? She knows exactly why her victim is there, and has no doubt why she is killing him or her. So does the ham-handed hitman she hired to do the deed.
Now that we've dealt with that, on to the comparison-- Motivated criminal burglar vs. unborn child:
The burglar chose to invade my home.
The child did not choose to be conceived.
The burglar has chosen evil.
The child is in the most innocent state of any human life.
The burglar may steal my property, but more importantly, he may rape, assault or kill people in my home.
The child only "threatens" to inconvenience her mother.
The burglar, barring extremely threatening behavior on his part, will receive a warning and may leave or surrender without me killing him.
The child will receive no warning, and will be cut down without mercy.
The burglar could have stayed home, or gotten a job.
The child's mother could have kept her legs together. Sound harsh? Well guess what my primary method of avoiding child support payments is? Keeping my genitalia in my trousers, that's what. I have it on good authority that women can follow the same procedure.
The burglar, if harmed at all, will be killed by me with a shotgun or large caliber handgun and die very quickly. If he makes it to the hospital he will have large doses of painkillers in his system when he passes.
The child will be ripped limb from limb at a time when she feels pain more intently than at any other time in the human lifespan.
The burglar will be recovered by the county coroner. He will be released to a funeral home that will treat his remains with respect and help his family grieve. A police investigation and coroner's inquest will ensure I was justified in taking his life.
The child will be thrown in a medical waste dumpster, treated like trash. No one will ask if her death was just. Organizations will spend millions to say that her death, and over a million like hers every year, are an exercise of a sacred freedom. They will, like you, deem turning a small child into medical waste to be a mere "property right." You know, like the property right to own an African that we had prior to 1865.
One last thing:
If you allow that a woman is the landlord of her own body, why not let her as the owner, protect her own biological resources, at least in the first trimester?
I think that's a silly analogy, but let me ask you this: When's the last time you heard of a landlord that evicted someone from his apartment building by ripping their limbs off and throwing them in the garbage? Heck, when's the last time you heard of a landlord who evicted people by shooting them in the head? And here's the big question: When's the last time you heard of a landlord that did that and wasn't prosecuted?
Astonishing comments. Are you really contending that women's bodies are property? Can they be traded or bought or sold legally. Would a surgeon be ethically correct if he told every female he saw that because she has breasts and could get breast cancer that he recommends mastectomy prophylactically? The body of the baby is not the body of the mother. They are distinct scientifically, medially, chromosomally. Who asserts their rights? There is risk to pregnancy just as there is risk to remaining nulliparous. A nulliparous female is much more likely to develope a certain type of breast cancer than one who has born children. Therefore should society demand all females get pregnant to protect against breast cancer?
It is a violation of Natural Law for a pregnant mother to kill her child inutero.
Many pro-lifers are avid hand gun owners - and users. They wouldn't hesitate to use the gun on someone, a HUMAN, if they faced a home invasion robbery. That is taking a life, isnt it. Since a fetus IS an unintended (UNWANTED) intruder (if the birth control you follow fails), a fetus represents an "intruder" in the body of a woman, in that case. If you allow that a woman is the landlord of her own body, why not let her as the owner, protect her own biological resources, at least in the first trimester?
Your logic would follow that a female who has a 10 month old baby who is breast feeding to kill the child to accommodate her "biological resources". Eugenics was tried in this country in the early 1900's and attempted to be perfected in 1933 (circa) Germany. It was an abomination then when it was proposed and it is equally as disgusting to read you like-minded proposal. It is not new, but it is disgusting.
Should parents who decide they no longer want their two year old (UNWANTED, you said) be allowed to dispatch that child. After all the eugenisists stated the child did not become a person until they reach 5 years of age with a discerable personality.
Since it is 'your body' why not allow suicide? I'll answer that rhetorical question. Because it is not a life given by nature, but by God and He and He alone may morally take it.Your 3rd paragraph is simply inane. You equate a thief and robber with an innocent, and from that launching pad propagate a series of nonsequitors which are astonishingly stupid.
) Many pro-lifers are avid hand gun owners - and users. They wouldn't hesitate to use the gun on someone, a HUMAN, if they faced a home invasion robbery. That is taking a life, isnt it. Since a fetus IS an unintended (UNWANTED) intruder (if the birth control you follow fails), a fetus represents an "intruder" in the body of a woman, in that case. If you allow that a woman is the landlord of her own body, why not let her as the owner, protect her own biological resources, at least in the first trimester?
As you may know our founders who propounded the consititution, and your adivance to the second amendment asserted that "all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,....the first of which is life". They also asserted in our founding documents that there could be no liberty without the state protecting private property. You live in a Dred-Scott world view that certain lives are property, chattel, to be traded or destroyed as the overseer determines.
It seems that that the euphemism 'right to choose' is in reality your highest on your hierarchy of values. The right to life is obviously somewhere beneath that. Therefore could you condemn anyone who 'chooses' to be a racist, or rapist, or a company who chooses to pollute with impunity? Does the baby who is being dismembered have a right to choose in your world? In your world the Dred-Scott v. Sandford asserts that slavery is legal. You assert abortion is legal. In Dred blacks are non persons. You assert the baby is a nonperson. In Dred, blacks are property. In your world babies are property. In Dred abolitionists should not impose morality on the slave owner. In your world pro-lifers should not impose morality on the mother. This country has long since determined that the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was incorrectly determined by the court. How long will it take for the perverse reasoning of Harry Blackmun to be struck down and come into the 21st century with science and recognize that a fetus is a scientifically unique individual with 'unalienable rights' to life.
I understand exactly your assertion that is stated in paragraph four in that your morality has never made a differentiation between animal and man. That ideal to underpin your world view. If that is so, should it be against the law for your neighbor to kill you if he 'chooses'? After all if a cat kills a mouse, there has been no violence done to your morality. People are simply a branch of the phylogenetic tree in your world and it is a matter of survival of the fittest not a matter of moral incongruity. I am sure you would agree with the arbitrary legal determination that a Bald Eagle egg cannot be destroyed, but the morcellation of 4,000 babies each day is agreeable. Why don't you go to the local medical school library and check out the video which documents in utero amnioscopy, the movement of a baby, the reaction to external stimuli (light, pin-prick, pressure). As you watch the baby in the amniotic fluid at 15 weeks gestation, you will not think it is a chicken, or a dog, or an orcha,..you will know it is a baby. A human baby deserving of its God-given right to life. Who in the universe are you to assert that baby should be killed at your discretionor the mothers discretion?
> The child only "threatens" to inconvenience her mother.
> a woman is the landlord of her own body - I think that's a silly analogy.
> Since it is 'your body' why not allow suicide? I SUPPORT a persons right to suicide.
Its clear that well continue to disagree, Mr. Silverback. A woman has some property rights too. Both of you imply I am asserting women are "property" when I am not saying that at all. I am saying that a woman has some rights to her own biological property. She is the property OWNER. Please don't be obtuse.
Mr. Silverback, I am sure you would reach a limit when it comes to giving to beggars, no matter how much you protest my example. At some point, you WOULD say No, and fire back, in order to protect yourself, your OWN family, and your resources no matter how innocent the adult victim of poverty, due to a natural disaster who is banging at your door, for help. You do NOT have infinite resources. Dont give me this blather about how everyone-&-anyone could just knock on my door, and Id give them food. You HAVE your limits; we all do. Dont be "silly," as you put it.
> Who in the universe are you to assert that baby should be killed at your discretion or the mothers discretion?
Like it or not, Texas Songwriter during drought periods, it is often the case to see infanticide rates go up, as people act to preserve the probability that the lives of existing children will continue (not enough food to go around). Who are you to decide these things? I'll ask you the same question. Do you have the resources to take care of all the new children produced during sex?
It would be nice if we all could afford 8 or 9 kids. * or 9 kids are very nice. But this gets kind of expensive. If a pregnancy happens by accident (the birth control fails), I see nothing wrong with a morning after pill or early abortion. By your "reasoning," we should preserve (save up) all sperm and eggs, since this is potential human life too. Frankly, it is anti-life to throw away ANY of these cells - isn't it?
Should we refrain from sex if we don't want any more children, of our health would be threatened by additional pregnancies, or our food supplies would not support another mouth to feed on the farm? You certainly suggest this, by your reasoning (if one is opposed to abortion). We DO have the right to pursue HAPPINESS as well as life as I recall. Happiness includes sex. And if the condom breaks or the birth control methods fail, wed place the success of our existing children at risk if the morning-after pill is outlawed. Kids are very expensive.
You are both welcome to set up adoption agencies, and orphanages, with your own funds, and pay for births and placements, etc. I would encourage you to do that, its certainly laudable effort, and I'd applaud you.
I have ethical positions, but Im also an economist by training. I think the logical extension of your arguments need re-examination as well. These are not easy issues, they're difficult ones. At what point should you turn a gun on someone who is begging & pleading for the food off your plate, because they are in desperate need? If you can answer that question for me, and do it with high ethics and confidence, we can make some headway on that issue - and the issue of abortion decisions.
I've enjoyed talking with you, please don't get all worked up if I don't respond to every one of your posts, I actually have a disabled husband -- and a full time, very time-consuming job.
Have a great new year,