"Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child"

[higgybaby]

As qouted from Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Carol Everett:

When President Ronald Reagan stated in 1984 that during an abortion "the fetus feels pain which is long and agonizing, " it set off a furious reaction by prochoice advocates. They did not want to believe this, nor did they want the public to believe it. But twenty-six medical authorities, including two past presidents of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stepped forward with a letter documenting that the unborn does in fact feel pain during an abortion. Their letter says in part:


Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground.. That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the new-born of the human species is a highly complex, sentient, fucntioning, individual organism is established scientific fact. ... Over the last eighteenyears, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG(electrocardiogram) and the fetal EEG(electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch and sound. Pioneer fetologist Albert Liley, of the University of Auckland, says that by the fifty-sixth day after conception, the baby's spinal reflexes are sufficiently developed to feel pain. He adds, "When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion as a child would. But they soon learned he did"

The fact that anestheisia is routinely used on preborn children during fetal surgery is an obvious commentary on the unborn's capacity to feel pain. Despite the prochoice rhetoric, it is clear that for one person, at least, no abortion is ever easy or painless.

WOW! 56 days???? I had no idea.
I find that puzzling though, since the pain receptors can only be read by the brain, and the brain isn't fully functional until the 3rd trimester.

I don't know...this is why I am asking...but don't most abortions happen in the first trimester? ( I know that 3rd trimester abortions are illegal,at least I thought they were).

Like I said in the other thread, I really don't agree with abortion unless it is as a result of rape or insest, or endangering the mother's life.

[higgybaby]

also from the same book: By early in the second trimester the baby moves his hands to shield his eyes to bright light coming in through his mother's body. "The fetus also responds to sounds in frequencies so high or low that they cannot be heard by the human adult ear." He hears loud music and may even cover his ears at loud noises from the outside world. At seventeen weeks, when abortions are still commonly performed, the child experiences Rapid Eye Movement(REM) sleep, indicating that he is not only sleeping but dreaming. Can we say that someone capable of dreaming is incapable of thinking?
There is no doubt whatsoever that later abortions kill a sentient, thinking human being. By the end of the second and the start of the third trimester (twenty-four weeks) the "brains neural circuits are as advanced as a newborns." It seems unthinkable that anyone aware of the facts could favor the current legality of abortions in the second and third trimesters. That such abortions are adamantly defended by prochoice advocates should cause us to ask whether their position is based on facts at all or merely personal preference or wishful thinking.
But are earlier abortions any better than later ones? Since there is a functioning brain with measurable waves at forty days of development. who are we to say that these tiny brains cannot do what brains do--think? Yet virtually all abortions legal in America occur after forty days. And even if an abortion is made available that takes the life before there is the capacity for thought , does this destroy the life in a way that is any less real or significant? Does it change the fact that a child who would have had a name and a family and a life will now have none of these?

[IowaSkinsFan]

This is powerful information. Maybe the Pro Choice contingent of America should consider this when they use the "My body, My choice". I would part by saying to them, the last 2 things you are going to do to your unborn child is first to cause it pain and then kill it.

How would you like to know that was your last 2 contributions to a life in this world?

[higgybaby]

I think it would be interesting to take a poll of those who are prochoice, to see if after becoming aware of this information their over all opinion changes or not.

[Ford]

I'm not even going to touch this subject .. I can't ever even make up my own mind as to what I believe in here.

[BigCountry]

I'm pro choice and I didn't give it a second thought for a split second.

[Spence]

Originally posted by BigCountry
I'm pro choice and I didn't give it a second thought for a split second.

Ditto.

[higgybaby]

I only have one question, why would these facts' not have you reconsider your view? I am seriously inquiring about this, honestly not in an attempt to "convert you" but only in an attempt to understand what kind of person could know that they were painfully killing something that is aware of its pain and not give it a second thought?

[Spence]

Lots of medical procedures will seem grotesque if someone with an axe to grind goes out of his or her way to emphasize the graphic awfulness of it.

It comes down to this for me. Having a child is the most personal decision in the world. The decision on whether or not to have one or to have an abortion is best made by the mother [and if possible, the father] after consultation with her conscience and her physician. The anti-choice crowd [who usually refer to themselves as opponents of big government] think the decision should be made by government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. or a state capitol, rather than the woman. In other words, they think this most personal of decisions should not be made by the person who is the most informed about her situation [the woman], but instead by people who have never met her, never will meet her, and have no idea what her life is like.

It's hard to imagine a policy that makes less sense than that.

[BigCountry]

If you think it's wrong Higgy, advise your partnet against it. Every situation is differant and niether of us has a right to make this decision for a woman. My question is this. What kind of person thinks he has the right to make a decision of such proportion for a woman?

[roberro]

[quote]Originally posted by Spence
[b]Lots of medical procedures will seem grotesque if someone with an axe to grind goes out of his or her way to emphasize the graphic awfulness of it.

And, today, Bush signed a bill prohibiting, "late term abortions", which the Anti-choice people would have us believe involves allowing the baby's head to be delivered, and then crushing the skull and sucking out the brains. Folks, I just retired from a 20 year career as a Registered Nurse and I can tell you, without reservation, there isn't a doctor or nurse in this country who would participate in such a procedure. If anyone can cite responsible references to refute me, please do.

[jporterweb]

[quote]Originally posted by roberro
[b]

Originally posted by Spence
Lots of medical procedures will seem grotesque if someone with an axe to grind goes out of his or her way to emphasize the graphic awfulness of it.

And, today, Bush signed a bill prohibiting, "late term abortions", which the Anti-choice people would have us believe involves allowing the baby's head to be delivered, and then crushing the skull and sucking out the brains. Folks, I just retired from a 20 year career as a Registered Nurse and I can tell you, without reservation, there isn't a doctor or nurse in this country who would participate in such a procedure. If anyone can cite responsible references to refute me, please do.

Alright, every news group in the country defines it by saying in Most cases, Oh and the Skull collapses AFTER the brain is removed.

From Yahoo News
The bill outlaws a procedure generally performed in the second or third trimester in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured.
Story

From Fox News
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 makes it illegal for doctors to take overt action to abort a late-term fetus — one in its second or third trimester — by bringing the baby's body out of the birth canal, then puncturing the skull and sucking out the brainStory

From PriestsForLife.org
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 makes it illegal for doctors to take overt action to abort a late-term fetus — one in its second or third trimester — by bringing the baby's body out of the birth canal, then puncturing the skull and sucking out the brainIMAGES OF PROCEDURE

From About.com
Partial Birth Abortion: In the partial birth abortion procedure, a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery. Partial birth abortion makes up only 1% of all abortions performedStory

How many more would you like?

[roberro]

As usual, the Anti-choice camp uses incorrect and misleading terminology to try to make it's case. The term, "partial birth" is just such an example. It would lead one to visualize a woman in labor and in the process of a live birth undergoing such a procedure. That just doesn't happen. Your reference in which Dr Haskell explains the procedure does not use this term, but rather, it's correct name of Dilitation and Extraction. It has nothing to do with a "birth", partial or otherwise. Furtermore, any writing that refers to the surgeon as, "the abortionist" is automatically suspect and is therefore rejected as a responsible reference. Catholic dogma is not going to convince me on this subject.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by roberro
As usual, the Anti-choice camp uses incorrect and misleading terminology to try to make it's case. The term, "partial birth" is just such an example. It would lead one to visualize a woman in labor and in the process of a live birth undergoing such a procedure. That just doesn't happen. Your reference in which Dr Haskell explains the procedure does not use this term, but rather, it's correct name of Dilitation and Extraction. It has nothing to do with a "birth", partial or otherwise. Furtermore, any writing that refers to the surgeon as, "the abortionist" is automatically suspect and is therefore rejected as a responsible reference. Catholic dogma is not going to convince me on this subject.

In other words, you want to look the other way and not believe the obvious fact based on a couple of words. Makes sense. Oh, and here is the definition of birth.

birth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bûrth)
n. The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.

So partial-birth fits partial emergence pretty well.
As for the Catholic dogma crap, say what you want about that, I'm not catholic so I couldn't care less about catholocism, but how can you sit here and look at all these news groups and websites that say the exact same thing and go. They are not a responsible reference? You want me to find a damn doctor that comes to your house and shows you a demonstration? COMEON!!!

Here's a site, but it has the word religion in it so
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ab....htm#procedure

OH And here, read a DOCTOR's DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURE.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/prochoice/haskell1.htm
It was written by Dr. Martin Haskell. That is a doctor explaining to others in the Abortion Federation HOW THE PROCEDURE IS DONE. Is that irresposible? Oh wait, it's probably doctored isn't it. It's fake right? He really doesn't do what it says he does.