Does an Unborn Child Feel Pain?
posted by Crystal Paine at 3:03 PM
Thursday, August 25, 2005
My Other Blog
A Few Favorites
Roses and Teacups ~ A Garden of Gifts for Giving Hearts
Search
Recent Posts
- Where to Find Dresses and Skirts Part 3
- Where to Find Dresses and Skirts Part 2
- Where to Find Dresses and Skirts Part 1
- What's Cooking at Your House?
- Modest Swimwear
- Housework in Dresses Part 2
- Challenge of the Week: Do Something Domestic!
- The Answer to My Laundry Dilemma!
- The First Day of School
- College for None, Some, or All?
Subscribe to Biblical Womanhood
3 Comments:
The point Barber is making is understood. However, the study wasn't commissioned by pro-choice groups or meant to reinforce the legality of the abortion procedure. It was an independent study participated in by many scientists.
The reason behind the study (endorsed by the American Medical Association) is that many states are/were requiring that women who seek abortion be given information on fetal pain, so they "know" what they're doing to the fetus. Now, with this study, we see that that step in pre-abortion "counseling" is unnecessary.
What's more, this study also has implications for surgery done on fetuses in the womb; previously fetuses were anesthetized, which created a risk to the mother. Now that we know anesthesia is unnecessary, mothers will be safer when they choose to have corrective surgery on their fetus before birth (which is preferable over the alternative of abortion, right? safer surgery = more fetuses make it birth; previously, unsafe surgery = more abortion).
*shrugs* I don't really understand the condemnation of mere medical fact as shown by a scientific study. Just because one aspect of a study isn't to your liking doesn't mean we should discard or discredit it entirely.
No "anonymous" the study was done in reaction to sen. brownback of kansas legislation. the fetal pain. he wants women to be told that their babies feel pain when a killer sticks a needle in their necks, sucks their brains out, and collapses their skulls. you can read the article. it was done in reaction to that article so get teh fact then say something. and for the record fetus means offspring so lets cut the code words this is A HUMAN BEING
"No "anonymous" the study was done in reaction to sen. brownback of kansas legislation. the fetal pain. he wants women to be told that their babies feel pain when a killer sticks a needle in their necks, sucks their brains out, and collapses their skulls. you can read the article. it was done in reaction to that article so get teh fact then say something. and for the record fetus means offspring so lets cut the code words this is A HUMAN BEING"
I don't really understand the attitude I'm reading here. I do have my facts straight and I think I clearly outlined both sides to this. I wasn't arguing for abortion, I was responding to the real consequences of the study and explaining the reasons for its commission in the first place.
However, regardless of why the study was commissioned, we now know that fetuses (pre-born babies, yes) do not feel pain until about the 7th month of pregnancy. This means two things; I'll rephrase my previous post in an attempt to make them more clear:
1) Women who WANT their babies, but find out that those babies will be born deformed or with serious health conditions, can have surgery on their fetus to correct said deformities at a much reduced risk to their own (the mothers') health, by NOT receiving anesthesia. Isn't that a good thing? Don't you want a healthy baby AND mother?
2) I suppose this is what you don't like: Women don't need to be told that their fetus will feel pain during an abortion before the 7th month because that is not true, as we now know. Women deserve to have accurate information, even if you don't like that information. (by the way, the procedure you described does not exist; please research abortion methods and note that 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, well before anyone claims a fetus feels pain)
That's why I was said in my first post that you have to take the good with the bad; you may not like point #2, but #1 is a good thing by any standard, in my opinion. Does it make sense now?
Post a Comment
<< Home