|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 2 users and 15 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: Who's new
|
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 07/25/2006 - 1:48pm.
I was on The Christian Coalition's website checking out their Voter's scorecard, when I happened upon this. Just wondered what others would think of this.
»
UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS ACT I remember my own children kicking and squirming inside of my wife's womb. And my wife certainly remembers feeling their kicks. That unborn child is very much alive. All along, women have been able to feel the child inside of them, but now, science is telling us what the child inside of his or her mother can feel. Many are unaware of the scientific, medical fact that unborn children can feel, but it is true. Not only can they feel, but their ability to experience pain is heightened. The highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero from 20 to 30 weeks gestation. An expert report on fetal development, prepared for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban trials, notes that while unborn children are obviously incapable of verbal expressions, we know that they can experience pain based upon anatomical, functional, physiological and behavioral indicators that are correlated with pain in children and adults. Unborn children can experience pain. This is why unborn children are often administered anesthesia during in utero surgeries. Think about the pain that unborn children can experience, and then think about the more gruesome abortion procedures. Of course, we have heard about Partial Birth Abortion, but also consider the D&E abortion. During this procedure, commonly performed after 20-weeks--when there is medical evidence that the child can experience severe pain--the child is torn apart limb from limb. Think about how that must feel to a young human. We would never allow a dog to be treated this way. Yet, the creature we are talking about is a young, unborn child. Fortunately, the issue of pain experienced by unborn children has been covered by the news media during the Partial Birth Abortion Ban trials. Take for instance an April 7, 2004 Associated Press news article covering the trials: A type of abortion banned under a new federal law would cause 'severe and excruciating' pain to 20-week-old fetuses, a medical expert testified yesterday... 'I believe the fetus is conscious,' said Dr. Kanwaljeet 'Sonny' Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. ... Anand said yesterday that fetuses show increased heart rate, blood flow, and hormone levels in response to pain. 'The physiological responses have been very clearly studied,' he said. 'The fetus cannot talk . . . so this is the best evidence we can get.' To address this issue, I have introduced--with 30 cosponsors--the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S.51), which would require those who perform abortions on unborn children 20 weeks after fertilization to inform the woman seeking an abortion of the medical evidence that the unborn child feels pain-- a. through a verbal statement given by the abortion provider, and also b. by providing a brochure--developed by the Department of Health and Human Services--that goes into more detail than the verbal statement on the medical evidence of pain experienced by an unborn child 20 weeks after fertilization The bill would also ensure that the woman, if she chooses to continue with the abortion procedure after being given the medical information, has the option of choosing anesthesia for the child, so that the unborn child's pain is less severe. Women should not be kept in the dark; women have the right to know what their unborn child experiences during an abortion. After being presented with the medical and scientific information on the development of the unborn child 20 weeks after fertilization, the woman is more aware of the pain experienced by the child during an abortion procedure, and able--at the very least--to make an informed decision. It is simply not fair to keep women in the dark. Unborn children do not have a voice, but they are young members of the human family. It is time to look at the unborn child, and recognize that it is really a young human, who can feel pain and should be treated with care.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
|
I know very little about
Submitted by Phil Owen on Tue, 07/25/2006 - 8:18pm.THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
Submitted by yanna on Wed, 07/26/2006 - 11:53pm.Could you say more about
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 8:45am.Me too
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 9:07am.Resources
Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 07/28/2006 - 11:21am.Intact dilation and extraction wikipedia article, especially terminology
Thank you Sarah. I feel
Submitted by Phil Owen on Fri, 07/28/2006 - 10:50pm.I don't think I'd support a ban on this, though I am just a little uneasy about it. (I think any ethical discomfort I may feel would be absolutely overwhelmed by the discomfort a woman might experience with this procedure.)
When I think about it, it makes logical sense that there is a need, though uncommon, for this procedure. What if it becomes clear during the course of a pregnancy that the fetus will not produce any semblance of a healthy child? What if the baby will live in a "persistent vegetative state"? You probably wouldn't know until mid to late term... I think (using still the very little info I have on fetus development) I really wouldn't support a ban on this procedure.
"What if it becomes clear
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 07/29/2006 - 9:00am."What if it becomes clear during the course of a pregnancy that the fetus will not produce any semblance of a healthy child? What if the baby will live in a 'persistent vegetative state'?"
So why don't we eliminate those from our society that are in a "persistent vegative state?"
That's certainly what the previous post sounded like.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
I never suggested that we
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 07/29/2006 - 9:37am.I AM suggesting that if a woman were to face the choice between a mid to late term (20-30 week)abortion or giving birth to a baby that won't live, I could certainly understand the choice to have an abortion. That choice should not be taken away from women.
The circumstances for this seem rare, but evidently the procedure is extremely rare too.
[EDIT: I think I want to redact a previous statement... If I feel a general discomfort with the idea of third trimester abortions, this could not possibly be close to the discomfort that a woman preparing to have one would feel. It must take some incredible medical circumstances. I support full choice, even if I'm a little uncomfortable with it.]
Another story
Submitted by Sarah on Sat, 07/29/2006 - 9:01am.From second article this quote about the "Partial-Birth Act of 2003":
I don't support a ban either. I have to admit, I don't know everything about this issue, I get lost sometimes in the sea of emotional loaded language that is used. Plus these are frightening times, health care workers get killed, clinics get bombed.
Thanks, Sarah
Submitted by Jade on Sun, 07/30/2006 - 10:41pm.True, even embryos respond to stimulus. We don't know at what point the ability to feel pain actually develops. If someone claims they know this, whether pro-choice or pro-life, they are lying. No one knows.
I think it is pretty unlikely that abortion is painful to a fetus, however.At this stage in development, they are very fragile and I think it is pretty quick that their heart stops.
They used to claim that newborns couldn't feel pain, so doctors would greet babes with a spanking, and circumsise boys with no anesthetic. We now know that is not true.
Embryologists are always making new discoveries about the extroardinary process of human development.
Having this new information makes choosing abortion even more difficult for women. For most women it is a very sad choice to make. But most women are also glad they have the choice.
Jade
(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)
Just Google Partial Birth Abortion
Submitted by SP Fan on Sat, 07/29/2006 - 9:37pm.And click the Images link. Then you can see what great choice are available.
Why save the trees, when you can kill an unborn baby!
Call it whatever you want. I call Abortion Murder!
Then don't have one.
Submitted by yogi woman on Sun, 07/30/2006 - 10:22am.Sort of tied into the "don't
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 07/30/2006 - 12:51pm.Sort of tied into the "don't have one" response.
I had a guy in class give a response on how the legalization of abortion has hurt social security. It was pretty interesting. I had never thought of those consequences until after he said it.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
A lot of people profit on human misery
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 07/30/2006 - 2:04pm.Is adoption not a legitimate
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 07/30/2006 - 11:00pm.Is adoption not a legitimate option?
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Adoption is a choice, sure
Submitted by jlw on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 5:25am.From a personal standpoint,
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 8:32am.From a personal standpoint, I don't see why one wouldn't choose adoption. I'm not sure whether there's a lot of red-tape in the US and how easy it is to put a child up, but to me that's a far better alternative than abortion.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
That does sound interesting...
Submitted by No One on Sun, 07/30/2006 - 3:26pm.Had to do with the reduction
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 07/30/2006 - 11:11pm.Had to do with the reduction in the workforce and amount of labor paying into social security to maintain the program.
I haven't actually looked into the numbers, but it sounded as if it would be an obvious unintended consequence.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
TFI
Submitted by Jade on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 10:10am.You can argue the cost benefit of anything, no matter how absurd. Tobacco companies released a report a few years ago about the benefit to society of early deaths from smoking.(Fewer nursing home and social security costs!)
These arguments are interesting, for sure. But interesting is not the same as reasonable and sane. Jade
(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)
Wow. Thanks for the great
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 07/30/2006 - 2:45pm.I wish the Christian Coalition cared more about ...
Submitted by jlw on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 5:28am.I'm sure there are a number
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 8:45am.I'm sure there are a number of organizations aimed at helping children who are already alive. Whether they're associated with the Christian Coalition or not is another story.
But imagine if you did believe an abortion is tantamount to killing a person (which I do believe. I think Plan B is pushing the limit, but once we get outside of the few day period and start talking weeks and potentially even months, that's when I believe we're far past the limit). There's about 1.25 million abortions per year. And the biggest category? I would have thought the prime reason was rape/incest/endangerment to the mother. After all, those are the three reasons I always hear about protecting abortion. Yet 25.5% of abortions in the United States are done because the woman wishes to "postpone childbearing." A close second (at 21.3%) is "cannot afford baby."
I have a hard time swallowing the fact that we're carrying out these abortions on a "fetus" that has no human qualities.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Well, TFI, I know some
Submitted by Phil Owen on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:22am.You see, being really interested in honoring life requires having compassion for mothers... who are women. It seems that the Christian Coalition has a difficult time with the whole compassion for women thing. That's my real beef with them.
Common Ground
Submitted by Jade on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 11:39am.I have chosen to have two children despite being a teenager for one of them, single for the other, and both times very poor.
I love my children very much, and I know I made the right decision for myself. But my life comes with a lot of hardships, including a lot of judgement from other people. Its hard to imagine, I think, how strong the prejudice is against women who become mothers in "less than ideal circumstances" unless you've experienced it. I am a good mother, and I am lucky enough to be married to a wonderful partner, and have a strong support network.
Not everyone is so blessed.
Knowing how demanding parenting is, how physically taxing and emotionally intense pregnancy and birth are, and how much struggle I face with stigma and poverty, I know I cannot judge the choices of another woman.
The promising part about your statistics is this: It appears that by changing our societal attitudes about under what circumstances it is acceptable to have a baby, and by creating a social safety net that protects young families from the devastating impacts of poverty, we could potentially reduce the number of abortions significantly (30%?)without threats, shame, coersion or abortion legislation.
If we add to that a commitment to birth control access (including education), I am willing to bet we could shave off at least another 30% of the abortions in the US by preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Imagine reducing the number of abortions by 60% or more while at the same time making life better for existing children, and actually increasing (rather than supressing)women's access to choice!
The sooner we stop arguing about Roe vs. Wade, or arbitrary guesses as to when "life begins", and get to work on these social problems, the sooner we will start making progress for women and unborn children alike.
Jade
(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)