Home - List All Discussions

Why do 1st trimester abortions bother you?

Try to be civil

by: kayluvzchoice

The fetus/embryo does not feel a thing, it isn't sentient, it doesn't care if it is being aborted because it doesn't have the ability to care.
I really don't want anyone calling me a proabort death scanc nazi. Most of you are adults so why don't you CALMLY explain why first trimester abortions are bad without involving religion or playing with semantics. Insulting people who disagree with you isn't the best way to get your point across, get them to understand where you are coming from, or to persuade them.
I understand why people would be against second and third triemster abortions.

reply from: 4choice4all

Because they believe life begins at conception...so at conception the fertilized egg is no different and no less human than any born person. So if you can't kill a born person...you can't kill an unborn person at any stage of development. It's no different than killing the mentally impaired because they happen to be "less developed".
BTW...I'm a proabortdeathscancnazi...but that's what I think the other side believes.

reply from: Banned Member

If you are a pregnant woman, in 99% of instances, you have willingly chosen to be reproductively active. You have consciously chosen to be reproductively active by engaging in sexual intercourse. You knew that havingsex bore with it the chance of becoming pregnant. You understood that sex means that you could end up carrying a newly conceived child. Choices be consequences, even long lasting consequences such as becoming a parent. The father of that newly conceived child is a parent also. He made all the same informed choices that the woman made. We live in a sexually educated age and people, young men and women know where babies come from; they know what sex does and what sex is for. Birth control and contraception fail and we know that they sometimes fail. That doesn't mean that our choices are not still our own. When people willing engage in sexual activity, they understand that parenthood is a possibility. That is a reality of life. To end a new life that begins in the same way that you and every other human person began their life, is morally wrong on every possible level. To end any conceived life, for any reason, is morally wrong on every possible level.
Simply because a pregnancy is a first trimester pregnancy and that the visible evidence of life may be less apparent to our perception, does not mean that having an abortion makes you any less the person who has killed an unborn child. Abortion does not make you un-pregnant, it makes you the parent of a dead baby!

reply from: Banned Member

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2002_histogram.svg

reply from: sander

Why do you want to know?

reply from: 4choice4all

So a pregnancy is a consequence...what is wrong with mitigating consequences? Doesn't adoption mitigate the consequence? So does abortion.

reply from: CDC700

Believe? It's fact. When do you think the magic transition occurs? Oh, I forgot, they aren't a person until they pass through the birth canal.

reply from: CDC700

Adoption doesn't take a life. Strange how you are so nonchalant about killing babies.

reply from: sander

Believe? It's fact. When do you think the magic transition occurs? Oh, I forgot, they aren't a person until they pass through the birth canal.
With absolutley NO proof whatsoever, mind you....we're suppose to take 4c's word. Yeah....like that's going to ever happen.

reply from: Banned Member

Adoption takes care of life, creates family and considers the welfare of all involved.
Abortion means that one person is paid to kill another for the conveniance of one and the profession of another.

reply from: 4choice4all

Adoption mitigates the consequence of the act of procreation...either way, off the hook for the two adults that had sex. The fact that ones stops human development and kills the fetus is of no concern to me. I'm just arguing if abortion is wrong because it allows people to get off the hook for sex...then adoption is equally as wrong. I'm just picking at that one argument.

reply from: sander

Were you born this awful, or has time just ravaged you?
How can a thinking, feeling human being say the things you just did?
Adoption is life affirming, abortion is the cold hard opposite.
Adoption is self sacrificing, abortion is child sacrifice.
You proaborts are just the worse things that roam the earth.

reply from: Banned Member

Why not mandatory adoption verses elective abortion?
If no harm comes to the biological mother, what objection should she have?
Do you believe that a father should have the right to veto the woman's choice to have an abortion?
Inversely, should a father have the right to demand an abortion?
Do you believe in equal protection under the law?
Or should women be exclusive in their claim to reproductive freedom?

reply from: CDC700

The Father has a RIGHT and a DUTY to protect his unborn child. And there is no legal ground for a father to stand on. Been there, and did what I had to.

reply from: Banned Member

For those who love abortion quite often very much hate men. Men are merely sperm donors who have no reprodutive rights whatsoever. If they father a child, the woman may either raise that child alone and deny the father any rights of fatherhood while still demanding money to raise the child, or she may kill the child despite every protest and wish of the father would be willing to raise the child without any help of any kind from the mother.
Abortion is the bitter woman's right to kill unwanted children and spite evil men who father their children.

reply from: 4choice4all

Augustine...again, you insist that prochoice people are blood thirsty which has blinded you from reality. Women seek abortion because they DO NOT want to be pregnant. If the pregnancy didn't bother them and they merely wanted to avoid parenthood...adoption is an option. Most women want the pregnancy to STOP. So forced gestation does not solve the problem...not to mention how many issues people, like myself, have with forced gestation.
Pregnancy is not a 9 month walk in the park..even if it doesn't kill you it doesn't mean that it isn't difficult. It is a sacrifice....for many women, a sacrifice they don't mind making..but for some, it's one they don't want to make. That's why adoption is not a simple answer to abortion.

reply from: sander

It is a sacrifice....for many women, a sacrifice they don't mind making..but for some, it's one they don't want to make. That's why adoption is not a simple answer to abortion.
It's a simple enough answer for women who have an ounce of decency and respect for themselves. Adoption is an answer for those who are not consumed by selfishness.

reply from: Banned Member

http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens1592819module10359633photo_1215490322scars-of-whipped-slave-1863.jpg
Any more myths that you would care to buy into?

reply from: 4choice4all

As a woman that has experienced three pregnancies...let me say I'm more equipped to discuss the sacrifice of pregnancy than any male.
Selfishness is a part of human nature...part of human instinct....it's best to temper our selfishness....but to completely eradicate it would leave us defenseless.

reply from: Banned Member

Abortion remains the bitter woman's right to kill unwanted children and spite the evil men who father their children.

reply from: Banned Member

Abortion doesn't mean that you didn't spread your legs to the last man that offered easy sexual arousal.
Abortion just means that you are killing your own unborn children.

reply from: galen

because i DO think that a first trimester child can feel pain and terror... and that pain and terror are caused by abortion...
among other things

reply from: 4choice4all

Galen...does that belief fly in the face of what we understand about the human brain and human development?

reply from: CDC700

Do you not see the irony in you quoting the Bible and seeking scientific proof before you will follow what is written?

reply from: 4choice4all

Do you not have the ability to make a point instead of insulting someone that tries to?

reply from: CDC700

LTR,
I was asking a question, you'll know when I want to insult you.

reply from: 4choice4all

I will know...it will sound like a kid having a tantrum.
I walk in faith...I do not require or expect science to support my faith.

reply from: Banned Member

Abortion is wholly incompatible with the Christian faith.

reply from: Banned Member

Matthew 25:41-43 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
Is Jesus Christ not apparent in the child who survives the abortion; hungry, weak, defenseless and naked? Does the Christ who saves men not seek kindness in the form of a newborn child? Is Jesus not a stranger in the womb?
Mark 9:36-42 Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, "Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the one who sent me." John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us." Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."

reply from: 4choice4all

According to Augustine....who THANKFULLY is not the alpha and omega on the word of God....thankyouverymuch.

reply from: lukesmom

Human life is created at conception. That is a fact that is not disputed by either side. All human life from conception until natural death at whatever age is at some stage of human developement. Intentional killing of human life is a crime against humanity. Each intentional killing takes away another human's right to continue the life already begun. Each intentional killing changes all of humanity's future. Each mother who consents to having her unborn child killed distroys part of herself. Yes, I know. Most of you deny this but most of you twist your beliefs and your words to fit your actions. That, in itself, exposes a guilty conscience. You know you have done wrong therefore try to justify your actions to yourself and the world. You can't even see, through your denial, how miserably you fail to convince others.
Intentional killing of human life is murder; abortion is legalized murder in my opinion.

reply from: CDC700

That is everyone's opinion! If it weren't, there wouldn't be a need for this forum and certainly wouldn't be a bunch of sinister biches trying to convince people otherwise.

reply from: Banned Member

Matthew 25:41-43 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
Mark 9:36-42 Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, "Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the one who sent me." John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us." Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."
The above is Sacred Scripture, I did not write it and it is not according to me, it is according to God!

reply from: 4choice4all

Well...it IS disputed. Human development starts at conception...I don't think you'll find any argument there....but a human being?....that's debatable.
I'm being honest...I have no guilt over supporting abortion. I have never had an abortion...so what would be my desire in deluding myself into belief? And again...I am a mere representation of a VAST amount of prochoice individuals. So in effect we have to believe that what...half of all humans are delusional? Isn't that what atheists say about religious people...they delude themselves into belief. It's easier to argue that than to think about why people believe what they believe.
If everyone felt abortion was murder there would be no reason to debate it...no one would support it. You are asking yourselves the wrong questions...it's not "why do people condone murder" but "why do people not believe abortion is murder".
Augustine....your interpretation of scripture is the issue...you are not God so your interpretation is not truth.

reply from: sander

As a woman who has had three live deliveries and one heart breaking loss you don't have anything on anyone else.
I stand by my remarks that it is the height of selfishness for a woman to kill her very own son or daughter that is still in her womb, rather than give that child a chance at life.
There is a stark difference between self defense and selfishness, but you would have to have a heart and at least some head knowledge to understand that truth.

reply from: Banned Member

When does it become a human being brainiac? Hmmmmm?
When does the human being become a human being?

reply from: Faramir

So is contraception, yet look how many Christians have bought into it, and we still accept them as Christians.
With no authority, a non Catholic Christian denomination could come up with reasons to accept abortion that are just as "good" as their reasons to accept plugs and drugs to prevent making babies in the first place.

reply from: Banned Member

I haven't bought into contraception, so what is your point Faramir?

reply from: sander

You have a colossal nerve telling anyone that they are delusional or have the wrong interpetation of anything whatsoever.
You make statements that have no backing in fact, you offer no proof and expect the rest of us to just believe it....you are beyond delusional and have entered a realm known by few others.
You have yet to offer a paltry ounce of proof that humans in the womb are not beings! Not an ounce, not one word, not one anything.
To compare your babblings to flies buzzing about doesn't quite cover it completely.

reply from: lukesmom

As a woman who has had three live deliveries and one heart breaking loss you don't have anything on anyone else.
I stand by my remarks that it is the height of selfishness for a woman to kill her very own son or daughter that is still in her womb, rather than give that child a chance at life.
There is a stark difference between self defense and selfishness, but you would have to have a heart and at least some head knowledge to understand that truth.
I'm with you Sander and I have had 6 pregnancies with 5 live births. 4C-wanna show your post to your dh? Every child born was created by a woman AND a man. I know my dh went through my pregnancies with me and experience them too but in a different way than I did. Don't devalue the male role please. Not all men are worthless.

reply from: 4choice4all

My dh knows my thoughts on abortion. I said as someone that has birthed children I have more knowledge about the sacrifice of pregnancy than a man..someone incapable of birthing children. LTR. That doesn't devalue men....I merely state that men can't carry and birth children therefore their understanding of pregnancy is limited by their biology.
I have backed up my beliefs...you just ignore them or are incapable of comprehending them..that's your issue. BTW..I didn't say that Augustine's beliefs are wrong or delusional...I just don't support them but respect everyone's well intended search for truth...without feeling the need to judge their search. There's no ego here...I don't feel the need to "win" or "be right".
I've repeatedly said, dear Augustine, that a developing human achieves personhood status or becomes a human "being" at birth...and I've discussed, at length, why I believe that. Again, you either ignore it or can't comprehend it...doesn't mean that I haven't addressed it.

reply from: Faramir

Is contraception compatible with Christianity?
If a married people are using contraception, can they be Chrisitians?

reply from: sander

I've repeatedly said, dear Augustine, that a developing human achieves personhood status or becomes a human "being" at birth...and I've discussed, at length, why I believe that. Again, you either ignore it or can't comprehend it...doesn't mean that I haven't addressed it.
Do you take lessons on lying?
You have only given your beliefs, you have yet to give one ounce of proof of any source that humans aren't human beings while still in the womb.
You've just twisted the truth to suit your beliefs to justify supporting and facilitating the murder of children in the womb.
They don't come any blinder than you do.

reply from: BossMomma

For the same reason I'm against LTA's, they destroy an innocent human being. Pain has nothing to do with it, it would be just as wrong to anesthetize a grown man then kill him.

reply from: BossMomma

Actually life does begin at conception, the child was alive long before it was born.

reply from: sheri

Kayluzabortion, I assume from your your question that you are not talking about the majority of surgical abortions because they take place between the 8th and 10th week and by that time the baby is very much sentient, capable of feeling pain and terror, so I would assume you mean very early chemical abortions that may happen a few days post conception.
I believe it is wrong to kill innocent, non-threaghtening human life.
Life begins at fertilization.

reply from: 4choice4all

I'm sorry....but at 8-10 weeks a fetus/embryo feels terror and is sentient? Where does that come from? Terror is emotion which require forebrain and not just stem...and that doesn't come until third trimester...and even then is not fully developed for a while after birth. I'm being honest....I've never heard anyone claim (with any seriousness) that a first trimester fetus is sentient or can experience emotion. Who makes that claim and based on what? Even the prolife stuff I've read online never makes that claim.

reply from: BossMomma

A newborn isn't really sentient and has little or no emotion, do you now support the killing of neonates? People in a coma know, feel, experience as much as a first trimester embryo/fetus. Do you support killing them? Human life is not limited to self awareness, that is simply another stage in development reached a few months after birth.

reply from: sheri

It is common knowlage that an 8 week old baby will respond to stimulation from a needle in the womb. Here is a picture of a normal 11 week old baby.http://www.layyous.com/Videoclips/4d72.htm

reply from: 4choice4all

I didn't offer lack of cognition or sentience as a reason to support abortion. I'm just questioning the statement that was made and it's accuracy.
Now...would you like to comment on the statement that at 8-10 weeks there is awareness...the ability to experience emotions like terror or sentience?

reply from: sheri

Wait, let her commit to the mistake. Would it be wrong to kill an innocent entity if it were capable of feeling pain and terror?

reply from: 4choice4all

Responding to stimulation is not emotion or sentience....it's reflex. You specifically said it experiences the emotion, terror, and is sentient. I asked where you got that info from.

reply from: sheri

My question for you is, if it can be proven that a 10 week old baby can be frightened, then would it be wrong to have that baby killed?

reply from: Banned Member

Please offer medical of scientific evidence of this.

reply from: 4choice4all

Why are you avoiding admitting that you misspoke?
My thoughts on why abortion is moral, responsible and respectable choice are deeper than whether a 10 wk fetus can feel fear. So no....even if it were possible....which it is not....that point would not erase my belief that a fetus does not deserve personhood rights and protections. And please.....don't scramble for a link to the Silent Scream,lol. I've seen it......save yourself the post.

reply from: sheri

So it doesnt matter to you that a baby dies that is capable of thought?

reply from: sheri

http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/videos/video6.html
These pictures are older, but they vividly show how responsive a 1st trimester child is. Please look at all three videos, it was disstressing for me to see this as all the babies in the video must have died, i hope their brief lives help to bring you clarity on life in the womb.

reply from: sheri

http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/videos/Fetal_activity_index.html

reply from: 4choice4all

I've said...reflexive response is not the same as feeling emotion(terror) or sentience. Do you dispute that sentience and emotion require more than brain stem or brain wave activity? Do you dispute what BM said...that even newborns are not sentient beings?
To answer your direct question....having a thought doesn't negate my beliefs on abortion...but I certainly don't believe that at 8-10 weeks a fetus is having thoughts.

reply from: sheri

I think that we do not know every thing there is to know about the humane mind. I only know what i can observe, i saw the babies in the videos respond to the touch and it looked like an appropriate responce to me. Did you watch the video?

reply from: sheri

I can see for myself that a baby is capable of feeling pain at a very early age, there is no doubt in my mind, i thought we were talking about early chemical abortions, and why they are wrong. Why do you think it is morally ok to take an innocent life?

reply from: sheri

Where is Yoda when you need a dictionary??? My old dictionary says sentient means "having the pwer of sensation" You can see for yourself these little babies have the ability to feel.http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/videos/Fetal_activity_index.html

reply from: sheri

Lets just say what we are speaking of is life at day one, hasent even implanted yet, who gives you the right to take that life?

reply from: 4choice4all

Hey...I'm still trying to understand your claim that there is sentience and emotion when there is no fore brain...just brain stem. Brain stem covers reflexes...and that's what I see on those tapes....reflex....but not emotion and sentience. I'm wondering if any of the other prolifers on this board believe that sentience and emotion are present at that stage of development. Again...not arguing that it matters in the abortion question....but it is a falsehood that needs to be called out and not perpetuated.
I don't believe personhood starts at conception...so I see nothing wrong with abortion.

reply from: 4choice4all

Your own link refers to it as human reflex....not human emotion or human sentience....btw.

reply from: lukesmom

According to the proaborts it is not a "person" until OUT of the vaginal canal. Once out, person dust is sprinkled on whatever and "it" magically becomes a "person". At that is how it is in magical proabort land.
Oh, forgot, it is only a person IF the mother decides to sprinkle the person dust. If she doesn't choose to do so, "it" remains something other than a person but I still haven't figured out what yet. Maybe the magical proaborts can tell us. what you say proaborts?

reply from: 4choice4all

Condescension and sarcasm....but do you care to actually discuss the point being discussed? At that stage of development, are sentience and emotion present?
oh..again, the magic vagina/person dust theory is a prolife concoction...so phone a friend.

reply from: 4given

The most immoral, deplorable and disturbing members of this society advocate and promote the destruction of the most pure.. in what is to be their most protected state. Moral? Delusional. Whatever justifications that one uses.The bottom line is that an innocent being is destroyed through abortion.Often more than that one life. Have you spoken to anyone that is dealing with guilt, pain or sorrow in regard to their decision to have their offspring killed?
Please enlighten us with your knowledge of what a 10 week old can feel or fear. What is going on at 10 weeks development-wise?

reply from: sheri

I have heard stories of Doctors being befuddled by a person that can function with a sever case of anasephaly (SP?) I know by watching that video that a child is sentient at 10 weeks.
why do you think it should be ok to kill a baby?

reply from: lukesmom

OK, tell me why a trip out of the birth canal makes someone a "person" as in 1 sec earlier thay were a... what? My youngest was born at 36 weeks, he was as much a "person" as all other 36 weekers that were yet unborn. Why is it some premies are "people" because they were born but their fellow unborn fetuses are being aborted because they are not "people"? There is no logic in your opinion.

reply from: 4choice4all

There is no sentience at 10 wks...none. It's reflex...same as with babies that have anencephaly...they have brain stem which works reflexes.

reply from: sheri

You have to be able to feel in order to have a reflex. Did any of you guys watch the video clips? It is really sad.

reply from: 4choice4all

I have told you....over and over. If I spell it out AGAIN...what would that change. You would still disagree and of course, ask me at a later date to "explain myself". This is just being argumentative...in over 1000 posts in a month's time...I have offered that information up regularly. And yet...whenever I ask a question that NO ONE WILL BOTHER TO ANSWER...suddenly I'm asked to say it...again...and again...and again. If you want to participate in the discussion...then follow it. If you want to skim and toss out sound bytes...go ahead, but don't play dumb when you missed the meat of the matter...and don't expect others to feed you the answers as if you were a baby with no motor skills.
For the umpteenth time....for the chick in the back of the class making puppy dog eyes and smacking her gum instead of trying to follow along.....................
I define being in a broad term encapsulating medical, scientific, theological and philosophical ideals.
Medically....physical independence...actually being able to survive without being attached to an unwilling host. That is not the same as independence meaning can meet all it's own needs(food, shelter, etc.)..because at various stages even adults do not meet that criteria. I'm speaking to the ability to sustain life (heart, brain, biology) off of a host.
Scientifically,it's easy to determine human scientifically (having human dna...done...but hair has human dna and is not a "being")...it's the being that is hard to fit into scientific terms. So there I look to what makes our species unique. Our highly developed brain is one. We can look to what we know about fetal brain development and higher level thinking and cognition is not really present even after birth. Spare me the "kill a newborn/peter singer" because I've stated that I am viewing personhood across a spectrum of markers...science merely being one part.
Theologically I've explored at length here....but in summary I believe the bible is pretty silent about abortion and were it does point directly to it(exodus 21:22) it seems to point to the fetus not being equal. I find a beautiful truth to man being "born" when God breathed life into him considering what we know about the biological transformation that takes place with the heart and respiratory systems with the first breath. I also understand the command 'thou shalt not kill" and understand that the bible seems to contradict that commandment with it's blatant commands to kill and perhaps we sometimes widely interpret that command..and wrongly interpret it,imo.
Philosophically....I believe a being to be about more than respiration and cardiac support. Philosophically I think it's about our ability to love, to think, to dream, to create, to rationalize, to draw on a range of emotions. I do not believe a fetus is capable of being in any sense from a philosophical position.
And to add....legally. Personhood gives a person legal rights...SS#...citizenship....and down the line..the ability to become President based on place of birth and not place of conception

reply from: 4choice4all

No...you don't have to have emotions or sentience to have reflex.

reply from: 4given

Sad yeah.. and frustrating to see another person inflict discomfort.. etc on a defenseless being.. like they were lab rats.. Sick.

reply from: lukesmom

Well EXCUSE ME! YOU are the one here who wanted to have a civil discussion. I ask a civil question and get jumped on. You only want a "discussion" about YOUR beliefs and YOUR opinions. NONE of it based on fact but YOUR opinions only. Good night, you are the same as all the rest of the proaborts here. Nothing but mindless sheples spouting the same old boring, ignorant rhetoric you have been spoonfeed. Go to the back of your classroom and put on the dunce cap, idiot. You get an F for the year.

reply from: 4choice4all

You were being argumentative...you didn't ask a simple question...you asked the same question that has been asked over and over...and responded too. That's not dialogue...that's being obtuse. We don't argue facts in the debate...we discuss opinions. If it were about hard fact...we wouldn't have a debate.
I'm sorry...but didn't you, by your actions, prove my point that you have no interest in discussing the points I made but only wish to be contentious? Why ask a question when you do not care about the answer but only wish to argue?

reply from: 4given

"points" *Justifications* which wouldn't be necessary if there was no wrong-doing, right?!

reply from: 4choice4all

that makes no sense.....I assume you think you are "right" about abortion....at least morally...don't you make points about why abortion should be illegal...certainly "because" isn't your sole response. Now making a point or providing a reason is admission of guilt? lol

reply from: sander

Oh, you're guilty all right.
Guilty of stupidity as well as facilitating the deaths of innocent human beings who were created in the Image of God.
I know God's Word is meaningless to you, but there it is all the same.
If you can't know that God is pure in His justice and pure in righteousness, then you can't know a thing about Him...no matter how hard you pat yourself on the back in your supposed knowledge.
Your beliefs betray you and sell you out at every turn.

reply from: sander

Sad yeah.. and frustrating to see another person inflict discomfort.. etc on a defenseless being.. like they were lab rats.. Sick.
There's coming a day when God will sort out the "lab rat" facilitators from those with humanity and compassion for the weak in their hearts.

reply from: galen

***************************
Nope and there are even several threads here that show the proof... the NY times did an article on it... Even Sanjay Gupta from CNN believes that higer brain function for reasoning may not be there but the perception of pain most cetainly is... Its a common misperception that children don't feel pain untill the third trimester, but studies on preemies have shown they do as do studies on fetal pain surgery... the nurons etc are in place by the 7th week of gestation....
Fear is a response that nature developed to protect us in the wild.. terror goes along with it... first to develop and last to leave... if you can not be 100% sure that what you are doing is not painfull, torturous, or the cause of fear and anguish... why do it? why make a creatures last experoience on this earth painfull torture?

reply from: galen

As a physician, I am always concerned about the level of pain my patients have. One group of people who never receive attention to their level of pain is unborn children. Many scientists have discovered that unborn children experience pain as early as seven weeks gestation. This has been shown by accelerations in their heart rate and brain waves during an abortion. There is no question that a baby in the 2nd and 3rd trimester experiences pain during an abortion. I would like to see legislation passed that makes women aware of fetal pain and gives them the option of receiving some sort of pain medicine during the procedure.
Saline abortions are probably the most painful procedures for infants. This technique is used after 16 weeks of pregnancy, when enough fluid has accumulated in the amniotic fluid sac surrounding the baby. A needle is inserted through the mother's abdomen and 50-250 ml (as much as a cup) of amniotic fluid is withdrawn and replaced with a solution of concentrated salt. The baby breathes in, swallowing the salt and is poisoned. The chemical solution also causes painful burning and deterioration of the baby's skin. Usually, after about an hour, the child dies. The mother goes into labor about 33 to 35 hours after instillation and delivers a dead, burned, shriveled baby. About 97% of mothers deliver their dead babies within 72 hours.
The "Dilation and Extraction" (D&X), or "intact D&E" (IDE) is sometimes referred to as Partial Birth Abortion. This procedure is used on women who are 20- to 32-weeks pregnant -- or even later into pregnancy. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn baby's leg with forceps and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive.) Then the abortionist jams scissors into the back of the baby's skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound.
After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby's brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.
Animals in veterinarian offices and in research labs are not allowed to suffer like this. Why do we let members of our own race suffer in this fashion 1.5 million times a year? Let's make it a law that these victims receive anesthesia.
- Thomas V. Messe, M.D.
Groton, CT
(From: MassNews.com)

reply from: galen

In testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee, Professor Robert White confirmed that the 'fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain.... Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."
Summary of a presentation given by Dr. Paul Ranalli on "Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion" on
June 27, 1997. (I personally attended this presentation). Related links are included below.
The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid.
Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough
development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the
second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.
There are three different indicators providing evidence that the fetus feels pain.
1.Anatomical
- pain receptors spread over the body in stages: 8-16 weeks
- pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain's reception center):
7-20 weeks (summarized by Anand, K.J.S., Atlanta)
2.Physiological/Hormonal
- fetuses withdraw from painful stimulation
- two types of stress hormones, normally released by adults subjected to pain, are released by adults
subjected to pain, are releases in massive amounts by the fetus subjected to a needle puncture to draw a
blood sample:
(a) from 19 weeks onward (N. Fisk; London, England)
(b) from 16 weeks onward (J. Partch; Kiel, Germany)
3.Behavioral
- withdraw from pain
- change in vital signs
A 20-30 week old fetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. The period between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely
vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely
begun to develop.
Below is a graphical represenation depicting this mis-match in pain detection and pain modification

Dr. Paul Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto and acting president of the de Veber Institute for
Bioethics and Social Research. He is also Vice-President of Canadian Physicians For Life
Additional Information:
Unborn Pain
Franics X. Rocca @ The American Spectator
Babies may feel pain of abortion Roger Highfield @ Electronic Telegraph
Pain and It's Effects In the Human Neonate and Fetus - from the New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 317
No 21 (19 Nov. 1987): Pages 1321-1329.
Foetus 'may feel pain as early as six week old'
Abortion doctors may give foetuses painkiller
In testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee, Professor Robert White confirmed that the 'fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain.... Without question, all

reply from: galen

THE CIRCUMCISION REFERENCE LIBRARY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329,
19 November 1987.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIAL ARTICLE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS
K.J.S. ANAND, M.B.B.S., D.PHIL., AND P.R. HICKEY, M.D
From the Department of Anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, and Children's Hospital, Boston. Address reprint requests to Dr. Anand at the Department of Anesthesia, Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115.
THE evaluation of pain in the human fetus and neonate is difficult because pain is generally defined as a subjective phenomenon.1 Early studies of neurologic development concluded that neonatal responses to painful stimuli were decorticate in nature and that perception or localization of pain was not present.2 Furthermore, because neonates may not have memories of painful experiences, they were not thought capable of interpreting pain in a manner similar to that of adults.3-5 On a theoretical basis, it was also argued that a high threshold of painful stimuli may be adaptive in protecting infants from pain during birth.6 These traditional views have led to a widespread belief in the medical community that the human neonate or fetus may not be capable of perceiving pain.7,8
Strictly speaking, nociceptive activity, rather than pain,should be discussed with regard to the neonate, because pain is a sensation with strong emotional associations. The focus on pain perception in neonates and confusion over its differentiation from nociceptive activity and the accompanying physiologic responses have obscured the mounting evidence that nociception is important in the biology of the neonate. This is true regardless of any philosophical view on consciousness and "pain perception" in newborns. In the literature, terms relating to pain and nociception are used interchangeably; in this review, no further distinction between the two will generally be made.
One result of the pervasive view of neonatal pain is that newborns are frequently not given analgesic or anesthetic agents during invasive procedures, including surgery.9-19 Despite recommendations to the contrary in textbooks on pediatric anesthesiology, the clinical practice of inducing minimal or no anesthesia in newborns, particularly if they are premature, is widespread.9-19 Unfortunately, recommendations on neonatal anesthesia are made without reference to recent data about the development of perceptual mechanisms of pain and the physiologic responses to nociceptive activity in preterm and full-term neonates. Even Robinson and Gregory's landmark paper demonstrating the safety of narcotic anesthesia in preterm neonates cites "philosophic objections" rather than any physiologic rationale as a basis for using this technique.20 Although methodologic and other issues related to the study of pain in neonates have been discussed,21-23 the body of scientific evidence regarding the mechanisms and effects of nociceptive activity in newborn infants has not been addressed directly.

ANATOMICAL AND FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PAIN PERCEPTION
The neural pathways for pain may be traced from sensory receptors in the skin to sensory areas in the cerebral cortex of newborn infants. The density of nociceptive nerve endings in the skin of newborns is similar to or greater than that in adult skin.24 Cutaneous sensory receptors appear in the perioral area of the human fetus in the 7th week of gestation; they spread to the rest of the face, the palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet by the 11th week, to the trunk and proximal parts of the arms and legs by the 15th week, and to all cutaneous and mucous surfaces by the 20th week.25,26 The spread of cutaneous receptors is preceded by the development of synapses between sensory fibers and interneurons in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, which first appear during the sixth week of gestation.27,28 Recent studies using electron microscopy and immunocytochemical methods show that the development of various types of cells in the dorsal horn (along with their laminar arrangement, synaptic interconnections, and specific neurotransmitter vesicles) begins before 13 to 14 weeks of gestation and is completed by 30 weeks.29
Lack of myelination has been proposed as an index of the lack of maturity in the neonatal nervous system30 and is used frequently to support the argument that premature or full-term neonates are not capable of pain perception.9-19 However, even in the peripheral nerves of adults, nociceptive impulses are carried through unmyelinate (C-polymodal) and thinly myelinated (A-delta) fibers.31 Incomplete myelination merely implies a slower conduction velocity in the nerves or central nerve tracts of neonates, which is offset completely by the shorter interneuron and neuromuscular distances traveled by the impulse.32 Moreover, quantitative neuroanatomical data have shown that nociceptive nerve tracts in the spinal cord and central nervous system undergo complete myelination during the second and third trimesters of gestation. Pain pathways to the brain stem and thalamus are completely myelinated by 30 weeks; whereas the thalamocortical pain fibers in the posterior limb of the internal capsule and corona radiata are myelinated by 37 weeks.33
Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 109 neurons.34 The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections.35,36 The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).36-38
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39 By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns.39,40 Cortical components of visual and auditory evoked potentials have been recorded in preterm babies (born earlier than 30 weeks of gestation),40,41 whereas olfactory and tactile stimuli may also cause detectable changes in electroencephalograms of neonates.40,42 Second, in vivo measurements of cerebral glucose utilization have shown that maximal metabolic activity in located in sensory areas of the brain in neonates (the sensorimotor cortex, thalamus, and mid brain- brain-stem regions), further suggesting the functional maturity of these regions.43 Third, several forms of behavior imply cortical function during fetal life. Well-defined periods of quiet sleep, active sleep, and wakefulness occur in utero beginning at 28 weeks of gestation.44 In addition to the specific behavioral responses to pain described below, preterm and full-term babies have various cognitive, coordinative, and associative capabilities in response to visual and auditory stimuli, leaving no doubt about the presence of cortical function.45
Several lines of evidence suggest that the complete nervous system is active during prenatal development and that detrimental and developmental changes in any part would affect the entire system.25,26,42,46 In studies in animals, Ralston found that somatosensory neurons of the neocortex respond to peripheral noxious stimuli and proposed that "it does not appear necessary to postulate a subcortical mechanism for appreciation of pain in the fetus or neonate."47 Thus, human newborns do have the anatomical and functional components required for the perception of painful stimuli. Since these stimuli may undergo selective transmission, inhibition, or modulation by various neurotransmitters, the neurochemical mechanisms associated with pain pathways in the fetus and newborn are considered below.

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Development of Cutaneous Sensory Perception,25
Myelination of the Pain Pathways,32 Maturation of the Fetal Neocortex,33-37 and Electroencephalographic Patterns38-40 in the Human Fetus and Neonate.

NEUROCHEMICAL SYSTEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PAIN PERCEPTION
The Tachykinin System
Various putative neurotransmitters called the tachykinins (substance P, neurokinin A, neuromedin K, and so forth) have been identified in the central nervous system, but only substance P has been investigated thoroughly and shown to have a role in the transmission and control of pain impulses.48-56 Neural elements containing substance P and its receptors appear in the dorsal-root ganglia and dorsal horns of the spinal cord at 12 to 16 weeks of gestation.57 A high density of substance P fibers and cells have been observed in multiple areas of the fetal bran stem associated with pathways for pain perception and control and visceral reactions to pain.58-63 Substance P fibers and cells have also been found in the hypothalamus, mamillary bodies, thalamus, and cerebral cortex of human fetuses early in the development.58 Many studies have found higher densities of substance P and it receptors in neonates than in adults of the same species, although the importance of this finding is unclear.61,64-68
The Endogenous Opioid System
With the demonstration of the existence of stereospecific opiate receptors69,70 and their endogenous ligands,71 the control of pain was suggested as a primary role for the endogenous opioid system.72 Both the enkephalinergic and the endorphinergic systems may modulate pain transmission at spinal and supraspinal levels.56,73 In the human fetus, however, there are no data on the ontogeny and distribution of specific cells, fibers, and receptors (mu-, delta-, and kappa opiate receptors) that are thought to mediate the antinociceptive effects of exogenous and endogenous opioids.74 However, functionally mature endorphinergic cells in fetal pituitary glands have been observed at 15 weeks of gestation and possibly earlier.75,76 Beta-endorphin and beta-lipotropin were found to be secreted from fetal pituitary cells at 20 weeks in response to in vitro stimulation by corticotropin- releasing factor.77 In addition, more production of beta-endorphin may occur in fetal and neonatal pituitary glands than in adult glands.78-79
Endogenous opioids are released in the human fetus at birth and in response to fetal and neonatal distress.80 Umbilical-cord plasma levels of beta-endorphin and beta-lipotropin from healthy full-term neonates delivered vaginally or by cesarean section have been shown to be three to five times higher than plasma levels in resting adults.78,81 Neonates delivered vaginally by breech presentation or vacuum extraction had further increases in beta-endorphin levels, indication beta-endorphin secretion in response to stress at birth.82 Plasma beta-endorphin concentrations correlated negatively with umbilical-artery pH and partial pressure of oxygen and positively with base deficit and partial pressure of carbon dioxide, suggesting that birth asphyxia may be a potent stimulus to the release of endogenous opioids.81,83-87 Cerebrospinal fluid levels of beta-endorphin were also increased markedly in newborns with apnea of prematurity,88-90 infections, or hypoxemia.83,91,92 These elevated values may have been caused by the "stress" of illness,93 the pain associated with these clinical conditions, or the invasive procedures required for their treatment. However, these high levels of beta-endorphin are unlikely to decrease anesthetic or analgesic requirements,94 because the cerebrospinal fluid levels of beta-endorphin required to produce analgesia in human adults have been found to be 10,000 times higher than the highest recorded levels in neonates.95
The high levels of beta-endorphin and beta-lipotropin in cord plasma decreased substantially by 24 hours after birth87,96 and reached adult levels by five days, whereas the levels in the cerebrospinal fluid fell to adult values in 24 hours.87,97,98 In newborn infants of women addicted to narcotics, massive increases in plasma concentrations of beta-endorphin, beta-lipotropin, and metenkephalin occurred within 24 hours, with some values reaching 1000 times those in resting adults. Markedly increased levels persisted for up to 40 days after birth.87 However, these neonates were considered to be clinically normal, and no behavioral effects were observed (probably because of the development of prenatal opiate tolerance).

PHYSIOLOGIC CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH PAIN
Cardiorespiratory Changes
Changes in cardiovascular variables, transcutaneous partial pressure of oxygen, and palmar sweating have been observed in neonates undergoing painful clinical procedures. In preterm and full-term neonates undergoing circumcision99,100 or heel lancing,101-103 marked increases in the heart rate and blood pressure occurred during and after the procedure. The magnitude of changes in the heart rate was related to the intensity and duration of the stimulus104 and to the individual temperaments of the babies.105 The administration of local anesthesia to full-term neonates undergoing circumcision prevented the changes in heart rate and blood pressure,99,100,106 whereas giving a "pacifier" to preterm neonates during heel-stick procedures did not alter their cardiovascular or respiratory responses to pain.101 Further studies in newborn and older infants showed that noxious stimuli were associated with an increase in heart rate, whereas non-noxious stimuli (which elicited the attention or orientation of infants) caused a decrease in heart rate.22,107,108
Large fluctuations in transcutaneous partial pressure of oxygen above and below an arbitrary "safe" range of 50 to 100 mm Hg have been observed during various surgical procedures in neonates.109-111 Marked decreases in transcutaneous partial pressure of oxygen also occurred during circumcision,106,112 but such changes were prevented in neonates given local analgesic agents.100,106,112 Tracheal intubation in awake preterm and full-term neonates caused a significant decrease in transcutaneous partial pressure of oxygen, together with increases in arterial blood pressure113-115 and intracranial pressure.116 The increases in intracranial pressure with intubation were abolished in preterm neonates who were anesthetized.117 In addition, infants' cardiovascular responses to tracheal suctioning were abolished by opiate-induced analgesia.118
Palmar sweating has also been validated as a physiologic measure of the emotional state in full-term babies and has been closely related to their state of arousal and crying activity. Substantial changes in palmar sweating were observed in neonates undergoing heel-sticks for blood sampling, and subsequently, a mechanical method of heel lancing proved to be less painful than manual methods, on the basis of the amount of palmar sweating.120
Hormonal and Metabolic Changes
Hormonal and metabolic changes have been measured primarily in neonates undergoing surgery, although there are limited data on the neonatal responses to venipuncture and other minor procedures. Plasma renin activity increased significantly 5 minutes after venipuncture in full-term neonates and returned to basal levels 60 minutes thereafter; no changes occurred in the plasma levels of cortisol, epinephrine, or norepinephrine after venipuncture.121 In preterm neonates receiving ventilation therapy, chest physiotherapy and endotracheal suctioning produced significant increases in plasma epinephrine and norepinephrine; this response was decreased in sedated infants.122 In neonates undergoing circumcision without anesthesia, plasma cortisol levels increased markedly during and after the procedure.123,124 Similar changes in cortisol levels were not inhibited in a small number of neonates given a local anesthetic,125 but the efficacy of the nerve block was questionable in these cases.
Further detailed hormonal studies126 in preterm and full-term neonates who underwent surgery under minimal anesthesia documented a marked release of catecho- lamines,127 growth hormone,128 glucagon,127 cortisol, aldosterone, and other corticosteroids,129,130 as well as suppression of insulin secretion.131 These responses resulted in the breakdown of carbohydrate and fat stores,127,132,133 leading to severe and prolonged hyperglycemia and marked increases in blood lactate, pyruvate, total ketone bodies, and nonesterified fatty acids. Increased protein breakdown was documented during and after surgery by changes in plasma amino acids, elevated nitrogen excretion, and increased 3-methyl- histidine:creatinine ratios in the urine (Anand KJS, Aynsley-Green A: unpublished data). Marked differences also occurred between the stress responses of premature and full-term neonates (Anand KJS, Aynsley-Green A: unpublished data) and between the responses of neonates undergoing different degrees of surgical stress.134 Possibly because of the lack of deep anesthesia, neonatal stress responses were found to be three to five times greater than those in adults, although the duration was shorter.126 These stress responses could be inhibited by potent anesthetics, as demonstrated by randomized, controlled trials of halothane and fentanyl. These trials showed that endocrine and metabolic stress responses were decreased by halothane anesthesia in full-term neonates 35 and abolished by low-dose fentanyl anesthesia in preterm neonates.136 The stress responses of neonates undergoing cardiac surgery were also decreased in randomized trials of high-dose fentanyl and sufentanil anesthesia.126,137,138 These results indicated that the nociceptive stimuli during surgery performed with minimal anesthesia were responsible for the massive stress responses of neonates. Neonates who were given potent anesthetics in these randomized trials were more clinically stable during surgery and had fewer postoperative complications as compared with neonates under minimal anesthesia.126,129 There is preliminary evidence that the pathologic stress responses of neonates under light anesthesia during major cardiac surgery may be associated with an increased postoperative morbidity and mortality (Anand KJS, Hickey PR: unpublished data). Changes in plasma stress hormones (e.g., cortisol) can also be correlated with the behavioral states of newborn infants,124,139,140 which are important in the postulation of overt subjective distress in neonates responding to pain.

BEHAVIORAL CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH PAIN PERCEPTION
Simple Motor Responses
Early studies of the motor responses of newborn infants to pinpricks reported that the babies responded with a "diffuse body movement" rather than a purposeful withdrawal of the limb,2 whereas other studies found reflex withdrawal to be the most common response.141-143 More recently, the motor responses of 24 healthy full-term neonates to a pinprick in the leg were reported to be flexion and adduction of the upper and lower limbs associated with grimacing, crying, or both, and these responses were subsequently quantified.144,145 Similar responses have also been documented in very premature neonates, and in a recent study, Fitzgerald et al. found that premature neonates (<30 weeks) not only had lower thresholds for a flexor response but also had increased sensitization after repeated stimulation.146
Facial Expressions
Distinct facial expressions are associated with pleasure, pain, sadness, and surprise in infants.147 These expressions, especially those associated with pain, have been objectively classified and validated in a study of infants being immunized.102,148 With use of another method of objectively classifying facial expressions of neonates, different responses were observed with different techniques of heel lancing and with different behavioral states149 (and Grunau RVE, Craig KD: unpublished data). These findings suggest that the neonatal response to pain is complex and may be altered by the behavioral state and other factors at the time of the stimulus.150
Crying
Crying is the primary method of communication in newborn infants and is also elicited by stimuli other than pain.151 Several studies have classified infant crying according to the type of distress indicated and its spectrographic properties.152-154 These studies have shown that cries due to pain, hunger, or fear can be distinguished reliably by the subjective evaluation of trained observers and by spectrographic analysis.155-160 This has allowed the cry response to be used as a measure of pain in numerous recent studies. 22,99,100,102,106,152
The pain cry has specific behavioral characteristics and spectrographic properties in healthy full-term neonates.161-164 Pain cries of preterm neonates and neonates with neurologic impairment, hyperbilirubinemia, or meningitis are considerably different, thereby indicating altered cortical function in these babies.165-168 Changes in the patterns of neonatal cries have been correlated with the intensity of pain experienced during circumcision and were accurately differentiated by adult listeners.169 In other studies of the painful procedures, neonates were found to he more sensitive to pain than older infants (those 3 to 12 months old) but had similar latency periods between exposure to a painful stimulus and crying or another motor response.99-101,103,152,170 This supports the contention that slower conduction speed in the nerves of neonates is offset by the smaller inter-neuron distances traveled by the impulse.
Complex Behavioral Responses
Alterations in complex behavior and sleep-wake cycles have been studied mainly in newborn infants undergoing circumcision without anesthesia. Emde and coworkers observed that painful procedures were followed by prolonged periods of non-rapid-eye-movement sleep in newborns and confirmed these observations in a controlled study of neonates undergoing circumcision without anesthesia.171 Similar observations have been made in adults with prolonged stress. Other subsequent studies have found increased wakefulness and irritability for an hour after circumcision, an altered arousal level in circumcised male infants as compared with female and uncircumcised male infants, and an altered sleep-wake state in neonates undergoing heel-stick procedures.103,172,173 In a double-blind, randomized controlled study using the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale, 90 percent of neonates had changed behavioral states for more than 22 hours after circumcision, whereas only 16 percent of the uncircumcised infants did.174 It was therefore proposed that such painful procedures may have prolonged effects on the neurologic and psychosocial development of neonates.175 A similar randomized study showed the absence of these behavioral changes in neonates given local anesthetics for circumcision.176 For two days after circumcision, neonates who had received anesthetics were more attentive to various stimuli and had greater orientation, better motor responses, decreased irritability, and a greater ability to quiet themselves when disturbed. A recent controlled study showed that intervention designed to decrease the amount of sensory input and the intensity of stressful stimuli during intensive care of preterm neonates was associated with improved clinical and developmental outcomes.177 Because of their social validity and communicational specificity, the behavioral responses observed suggest that the neonatal response to pain is not just a reflex response.178-180

MEMORY OF PAIN IN NEONATES
The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory. In the short term, these behavioral changes may disrupt the adaptation of newborn infants to their postnatal environment,174-176 the development of parent-infant bonding, and feeding schedules.182,183 In the long term, painful experiences in neonates could possibly lead to psychological sequelae,22 since several workers have shown that newborns may have a much greater capacity for memory than was previously thought.183-186
Pain itself cannot be remembered, even by adults187; only the experiences associated with pain can be recalled. However, the question of memory is important, since it has been argued that memory traces are necessary for the "maturation" of pain perception,3 and a painful experience may not be deemed important if it is not remembered. Long-term memory requires the functional integrity of the limbic system and diencephalon (specifically, the hippocampus, amygdala, anterior and mediodorsal thalamic nuclei, and mamillary nuclei)188; these structures are well developed and functioning during the newborn period.42 Furthermore, the cellular, synaptic, and molecular changes required for memory and learning depend on brain plasticity, which is known to be highest during the late prenatal and neonatal periods.189,190 Apart from excellent studies in animals demonstrating the long-term effects of sensory experiences in the neonatal period,191 evidence for memories of pain in human infants must, by necessity, be anecdotal.178,192,193 Early painful experiences may be stored in the phylogenically old "procedural memory," which is not accessible to conscious recall.182,183,194 Although Janov195 and Holden196 have collected clinical data that they claim indicate that adult neuroses or psychosomatic illnesses may have their origins in painful memories acquired during infancy or even neonatal life, their findings have not been substantiated or widely accepted by other workers.

CONCLUSIONS
Numerous lines of evidence suggest that even in the human fetus, pain pathways as well as cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception are well developed late in gestation, and the neurochemical systems now known to be associated with pain transmission and modulation are intact and functional. Physiologic responses to painful stimuli have been well documented in neonates of various gestational ages and are reflected in hormonal, metabolic, and cardiorespiratory changes similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects. Other responses in newborn infants are suggestive of integrated emotional and behavioral responses to pain and are retained in memory long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns.
None of the data cited herein tell us whether neonatal nociceptive activity and associated responses are experienced subjectively by the neonate as pain similar to that experienced by older children and adults. However, the evidence does show that marked nociceptive activity clearly constitutes a physiologic and perhaps even a psychological form of stress in premature or full-term neonates. Attenuation of the deleterious effects of pathologic neonatal stress responses by the use of various anesthetic techniques has now been demonstrated. Recent editorials addressing these issues have promulgated a wide range of opinions, without reviewing all the available evidence.197-201 The evidence summarized in this paper provides a physiologic rationale for evaluating the risks of sedation, analgesia, local anesthesia, or general anesthesia during invasive procedures in neonates and young infants. Like persons caring for patients of other ages, those caring for neonates must evaluate the risks and benefits of using analgesic and anesthetic techniques in individual patients. However, in decisions about the use of these techniques, current knowledge suggests that humane considerations should apply as forcefully to the care of neonates and young, nonverbal infants as they do to children and adults in similar painful and stressful situations.
REFERENCES
1.Menskey H, Albe-Fessard DG, Bonica JJ, et al. Pain terms: a list with definitions and notes on usage: recommended by the IASP Subcommittee on Taxonomy. Pain 1979; 6:249-52.
2.McGraw MD. The neuromuscular maturation of the human infant. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943.
3.Merskey H. On the development of pain. Headache 1970; 10:116-23.
4.Levy DM. The infant's earliest memory of inoculation: a contribution to public health procedures. J Gen Psychol 1960; 96:3-46.
5.Harris FC, Lahey BB. A method for combining occurrence and nonoccurrence interobserver agreement scores. J Appl Behav Anal 1978; 11: 523-7.
6.Bondy AS. Infancy. In: Gabel S, Erickson MT, eds. Child development and developmental disabilities. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980:3-19.
7.Eland JM, Anderson JE. The experience of pain in children. In: Jacox AK, ed. Pain: a source book for nurses and other health professionals . Boston: Little, Brown, 1977:453-73.
8.Wallerstein E. Circumcision: the uniquely American medical enigma. Urol Clin N Am 1985; 12:123- 32.
9.Anand KJS, Aynsley-Green A. Metabolic and endocrine effects of surgical ligation of patent ductus arteriosus in the human preterm neonate: Are there implications for further improvement of postoperative outcome? Mod Probl Paediatr 1985; 23:143-57.
10.Lippmann N, Nelson RJ, Emmanouilides GC, Diskin J, Thibeault DW. Ligation of patent ductus arteriosus in premature infants. Br J Anaesth 1976; 48:365-9.
11.Shaw EA. Neonatal anaesthesia. Hosp Update 1982;8:423-34.
12.Katz J. The question of circumcision. Int Surg 1977; 62:490-2.
13.Swafford LI, Allan D. Pain relief in the pediatric patient. Med Clin North Am 1968; 52:131-6.
14.Rees GJ. Anesthesia in the newborn. Br Med J 1950; 2:1419-22.
15.Betts EK, Downes JJ. Anesthetic considerations in newborn surgery. Semin Anesth 1984; 3:59-74.
16.Inkster JS. Paediatric anaesthesia and intensive care. Int Anesthesiol Clin 1978; 16:58-91.
17.Norman EA. Pulse oximetry during repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Br J Anaesth 1986; 58:934-5.
18.Hatch DJ. Analgesia in the neonate. Br Med J 1987; 294:920.
19.Shearer MH. Surgery on the paralysed, unanesthetized newborn. Birth 1986; 13:79.
20.Robinson S, Gregory GA. Fentanyl-air-oxygen anesthesia for ligation of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants. Anesth Analg 1981; 60:331-4.
21.Weiss C. Does circumcision of the newborn require an anesthetic? Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1968; 7:128-9.
22.Owens ME. Pain

reply from: 4choice4all

I'm not talking about every fetus...we were talking first trimester and you claimed in the first trimester they could feel pain and terror.

reply from: galen

the new york
times article..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

reply from: galen

the american pain society article..
Publications
APS Bulletin . Volume 13, Number 4, 2003
Articles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fetal "Pain" - A Look at the Evidence
Stuart W.G. Derbyshire, PhD
In 1987, The Lancet published an article that demonstrated neonates receiving fentanyl anesthesia in preparation for surgery have improved clinical outcomes compared with neonates receiving nitrous oxide and curare (Anand, Sippel, & Aynsley-Green, 1987). This research, and subsequent studies, led to a major reconsideration of neonate analgesic practice (Fitzgerald, 1987; Anand & Hickey, 1992).
The New England Journal of Medicine ran an editorial calling on clinicians to "Do the right thing," concluding, "it is our responsibility to treat pain in neonates and infants as effectively as we do in other patients" (Rogers, 1992). Since then, it has become normal practice to assume neonates feel pain, and this has inevitably led to speculation that the fetus may also experience pain (Anand & Hickey, 1987; Giannakoulopoulos, Sepulveda, Kourtis, Glover, & Fisk, 1994; Richards, 1985). Discussion of fetal pain has attracted the attention of the media and governments because of links to abortion practice (Derbyshire, 1999). This year, the Minnesota Senate enacted legislation requiring physicians to inform women of the possibility of fetal pain prior to performing abortions (Minnesota Senate Bill 187). This article evaluates the evidence for and against fetal and neonatal pain, considering the implications for current clinical practice (other than abortion), and the contemporary understanding of pain.
Evidence the Fetus or Neonate Can Feel Pain
Anand's seminal work with neonates undergoing surgery demonstrated the major hormonal response to invasive practice could be significantly reduced with fentanyl added to the anesthetic regimen (Anand et al., 1987). Plasma adrenalin, noradrenaline, glucagon, aldosterone, corticosterone, 11-deoxycorticosterone, and 11-deoxycortisol levels, however, were significantly elevated in the non-fentanyl group up to 24 hours after surgery. Reduced hormonal response was viewed as responsible for the improved clinical outcome of the fentanyl group, which required less post-surgical ventilatory support and had reduced circulatory and metabolic complications. Anand and Hickey (1992) advanced these findings in a subsequent report indicating that neonates receiving deep anesthesia during surgery had improved post-operative morbidity compared with neonates receiving lighter anesthesia. The reduced hormonal response and improved clinical outcome following invasive surgery - in conjunction with anesthetics used for pain relief in adults - led to the conclusion that neonates could feel pain and that this pain needed to be controlled (Rogers, 1992).
Further support comes from the work of Fitzgerald (1987, 1994), who has reviewed the biological development of the fetus and examined the possibility of fetal pain at each stage of development. At 7.5 weeks' gestation, reflex responses to somatic stimuli begin, and touching the perioral region results in a contralateral bending of the head. The palms of the hands become sensitive to stroking at 10.5 weeks, and the rest of the body and hindlimbs become sensitive at approximately 13.5 weeks. Shortly after the development of sensitivity, repeated skin stimulation results in hyperexcitability and a generalized movement of all limbs. This hyperexcitability has been interpreted as evidence for the presence of a functional pain system, reflecting an immature but intact pain response with early hypersensitivity to stimulation (Barr, 1994). This view is not widely accepted, however, and is rejected by Fitzgerald herself. Prior to 26 weeks, the thalamocortical fibers have not yet penetrated the cortical plate, and it seems unlikely the cortical structures considered necessary for pain are responding to noxious stimulation (Mrzljak, Uylings, Kostovic, & van Eden, 1988).
The evidence for cortical involvement post-26 weeks is enhanced by behavioral studies that have demonstrated focused and organized responses to noxious stimulation that can be better discriminated from other distress responses (Craig, Whitfield, Grunau, Linton, & Hadjistavropoulos, 1993). As with the hormonal response to surgery, the behavioral responses can be reduced with the use of appropriate anesthetic (Fitzgerald, Millard, & McIntosh, 1989).
Having established the necessary neurobiology for pain is in place and that behavioral responses to noxious stimulation are present in premature babies of approximately 26 weeks gestation, it is logical to suggest a fetus of at least 26 weeks' gestation will respond similarly to invasive practice as observed in neonates undergoing surgery. Giannakoulopoulos et al. (1994) from the Queen Charlottes Hospital in London, England, successfully demonstrated intrauterine needling to obtain blood samples from fetuses at 20 to 34 weeks' gestation results in a hormonal stress response. They demonstrated that needling the innervated intraabdominal portion of the umbilical vein, rather than the placental cord (which is not innervated) resulted in increased cortisol and b-endorphin concentrations in fetal plasma. If this group or others can demonstrate the hormonal and neural "stress response" can be prevented with the use of appropriate anesthetics, they will have mirrored the criteria that have led to the widespread acceptance of "neonatal pain."
Evidence Against An Experience of Pain
The undisputed discovery that the neonate and fetus launch a hormonal and neural response to invasive practice cannot be considered proof there is an experience of pain. An experience implies sensations have been interpreted in a conscious manner. Even when combined with the observations of behavior and improved clinical outcome when using anesthetics, there is still no proof there is an experience of pain. Although all of these phenomena are associated with the notion of "pain," none of them adequately describe or explain the phenomenological experience of "pain." These phenomena may exist independently of conscious experience. The relationship between the physiological responses of nociceptors, the hormonal and other responses of the CNS, and the behavioral outcome of these changes to the psychological response are yet to be determined (Wall & McMahon, 1986).
If a proper assessment of neonatal and fetal pain is to be undertaken, we should examine the structure of the psychological experience of "pain," as the biological structures have been examined, and then work backwards to the fetus and neonate to decide whether it is likely or possible these psychological structures are in place (Derbyshire, 1999).
Pain experience is now widely seen as a consequence of an amalgam of cognition, sensation, and affective processes, commonly described under the rubric of the biopsychosocial model of pain. Pain is no longer regarded as merely a physical sensation of noxious stimulus and disease, but is seen as a conscious experience that may be modulated by mental, emotional, and sensory mechanisms with sensory and emotional components. The biopsychosocial concept emphasizes the multidimensional nature of illness, injury, and pain, rather than emphasizing pain as a purely physical fact of illness or injury. Pain has been described as a multidimensional phenomena for some time (Melzack & Casey, 1968), and this understanding is reflected in the current IASP definition of pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage" (Merskey, 1991).
If this 'multidimensionality' is the basis of conscious pain experience, it seems unlikely we can attribute this experience to the neonate or unborn fetus, which is naive to the cognitive, affective, and evaluative experiences necessary for pain awareness. This is accepted in the current definition of pain, which is further expanded to state, "Pain is always subjective. Each individual learns the application of the word through experiences related to injury in early life." Pain does not, so to speak, spring forth from the depths of the person's mind prior to any experience, but is gradually formed as a consequence of general conscious development.
Interestingly, even those authors who support a concept of fetal pain tend to back away when confronted with the need to explain pain phenomenology. Giannakoulopoulos et al (1994), for example, distanced themselves from any implied fetal pain experience with the statement, "a hormonal response cannot be equated with the perception of pain." Lloyd-Thomas and Fitzgerald (1996) have suggested if feeling and pain are properly understood, the fetus cannot be said to feel pain.
A further reason to doubt the viability of fetal pain post-26 weeks' gestation is the development of the fetal cortex. Although the thalamocortical fibers penetrate the cortical plate at approximately 26 weeks' gestation, the cortical regions that have been identified as important in processing the various components of pain (Derbyshire, 2000) do not become fully responsive until after birth (Chugani & Phelps, 1986).
Implications for Current Clinical Practice
The debate about fetal pain need not affect clinical practice involving the fetus or neonate. Evidence that the stress response, which the fetus and newborn launch in response to physical insult, has known detrimental consequences is acceptable even to those who do not accept that pain is experienced. Newborns who undergo operations without analgesia show increased mortality compared to newborns who receive analgesia. Therefore, in cases of invasive practice where there is a clinical rationale for anesthetic use that does not rely upon a pain diagnosis, withholding analgesia for neonates should remain an unethical practice. As exciting advances in fetal surgery continue, it is imperative that similar clinically oriented research be conducted on fetuses.
When the clinical advantage of anesthetic is less clear, however, any proposed use is bound to be controversial. There are those who argue that, while there is no consensus on this issue, clinicians should act according to the precautionary principle of assuming pain is experienced until it is proven otherwise. Few clinical procedures are risk-free, however, so it seems more appropriate to reserve any interventions for occasions when they are proven necessary. At the very least, the decision to proceed should involve consultation between pregnant women and their doctors rather than legislative diktat.
Implications for Pain Research
The implications of accepting the notion of neonatal and fetal pain for pain research are not minimal, as they raise a challenge to the biopsychosocial model of pain and the current definition of pain, threatening a return of ideas more closely resembling the discredited ideas of 'specificity' theory (Anand & Craig, 1996; Derbyshire, 1996; Wall, 1989).
In the absence of any conceptual framework to account for fetal/neonatal experience of pain, the fetal literature is drawn inexorably toward the ideas of "specificity" and "pain centers." Within a discussion of fetal pain, pain fibers (or peptides or neurotransmitters) are proposed to be stimulated and relay information to suggested pain centers somewhere in the brain. As for specificity, a painful stimulus activates the pain center, and pain becomes activity in the pain center. Specificity theory, however, has long been rejected because the definition of pain based on a direct relationship between stimulus and response has failed to resolve many of the major issues in pain research. Interpretations of injury based on a direct relationship between stimulus and pain cannot account for the variable link between stimulus and pain experience and the lack of any 'pain center' in the brain (Carlen, Wall, Nadvorna, & Steinbach, 1978; Melzack, Wall, & Ty, 1982; Beecher, 1959; Jones, 1994).
Elsewhere I have proposed a developmental model of pain following the work of Leventhal (1984) that describes stimulus information as gradually organized and elaborated in the central nervous system with respect to three hierarchical mechanisms (Derbyshire, 1999). The first two mechanisms in the hierarchy are perceptual-motor processing, followed by schematic processing (both are considered preconscious). Perceptual-motor processing involves activating an innate set of expressive motor reactions to environmental stimuli. Schematic processing involves the automatic encoding in memory of the experience to produce a categorical structure representing the general informational and sensory aspects of pain experiences. A set of conscious abstract rules about emotional episodes and associated voluntary responses is proposed to arise over time as a consequence of self-observation and conscious efforts to cope with aversive situations. This conscious pain experience is dependent upon the acquisition of certain developmental markers this author has tentatively described as being available by 12 months of age (Derbyshire, 1999). While rather mechanistic and far from ideal, this model outlines how the pressure of interacting with others and engaging in the environment gradually forces the subordination of our instinctual, unconscious biology to our developing conscious will.
Conclusion
The response of fetuses and neonates to invasive practice is a valuable research area that should provide better clinical practice in the future. Basing this research on the assumption there is pain experience, however, could lead to unnecessary anesthetic procedures and increased distress for pregnant women seeking abortion or facing fetal surgery. In addition, the focus on fetal pain challenges the current understanding of pain, but without providing theoretical progress. There is a tendency to roll back understanding toward ideas already largely rejected. Hasty acceptance of fetal pain may be detrimental to the pain field in general and the treatment and understanding of nociceptive responses in the fetus and newborn baby.
References
Anand, K.J.S. & Craig, K.D. (1996). New perspectives on the definition of pain. Pain, 67, 3-6.
Anand, K.J.S. & Hickey, P.R. (1992). Halothane-morphine compared with high dose sufentanil for anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in neonatal cardiac surgery. New England Journal of Medicine, 326(1), 1-9.
Anand, K.J.S. & Hickey, P.R. (1987). Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New England Journal of Medicine, 317(21), 1321-1329.
Anand, K.J.S., Sippel, W.G., & Aynsley-Green, A. (1987). Randomised trial of fentanyl anasthesia in preterm babies undergoing surgery: effects on the stress response. Lancet, 1, 243-248.
Barr, R.G. (1994). Pain experience in children. In Wall, P. & Melzack, R. (Eds.), Textbook of pain (pp. 739-765). Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone.
Beecher, H.K. (1959). Measurement of subjective responses. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carlen, P.L., Wall, P.D., Nadvorna, H., & Steinbach, T. (1978). Phantom limbs and related phenomena in recent traumatic amputations. Neurology, 28, 211-217.
Craig, K.D., Whitfield, M.F., Grunau, R.V.E., Linton, J., & Hadjistavropoulos, H.D. (1993). Pain in the preterm neonate: Behavioural and physiological indices. Pain, 52, 287-299.
Chugani, H.T. & Phelps, M.E. (1986). Maturational changes in cerebral function in infants determined by 18FDG positron emission tomography. Science, 231, 840-843
Derbyshire, S.W.G. (2000). Exploring the pain "neuromatrix." Current Review of Pain, 6, 467-477.
Derbyshire, S.W.G. (1999). Locating the beginnings of pain. Bioethics, 13, 1-31.
Derbyshire, S.W.G. (1996). Comment on editorial by Anand and Craig. Pain, 67, 210-211.
Fitzgerald, M. (1994). Neurobiology of fetal and neonatal pain. In P. Wall & R. Melzack (Eds.), Textbook of Pain (pp. 153-163). Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone.
Fitzgerald, M. (1987). Pain and analgesia in neonates. Trends in Neurosciences, 10, 344-346.
Fitzgerald, M. Millard, M., & McIntosh, N. (1989). Cutaneous hypersensitivity following peripheral tissue damage in newborn infants and its reversal with topical anaesthesia. Pain, 39, 31-36.
Giannakoulopoulos, X., Sepulveda, W., Kourtis, P., Glover, V., & Fisk, N.M. (1994). Fetal plasma cortisol and b-endorphin response to intrauterine needling. Lancet, 344, 77-81.
Jones, A.K.P. (1994). Do "pain centres" exist? British Journal of Rheumatology, 31, 290-292.
Leventhal, H. (1984). A perceptual-motor theory of emotion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 117-175.
Lloyd-Thomas, A.R. & Fitzgerald, M. (1996). Reflex responses do not necessarily signify pain. British Medical Journal, 313, 797-798.
Melzack, R. & Casey, K.L. (1968). Sensory, motivational and central control determinants of pain. In D. Kenshalo (Ed.), The Skin Senses (pp. 423-443). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Melzack, R., Wall, P.D. & Ty, T.C. (1982). Acute pain in an emergency clinic: Latency of onset and descriptor patterns. Pain, 14, 33-43.
Merskey, H. (1991). The definition of pain. Euopean Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 153-159.
Mrzljak, L., Uylings, H.B.M., Kostovic, I., & van Eden, C.G. (1988). Prenatal development of neurons in prefrontal cortex: A qualitative Golgi study. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 271, 355-386.
Richards, T. (1985). Can a fetus feel pain? British Medical Journal, 291,1220-1221.
Rogers, M.C. (1992). Do the right thing: Pain relief in infants and children. New England Journal of Medicine, 326(1), 55-56.
Wall, P.D. (1989). Why the definition of pain is crucial. In P. Wall & R. Melzack (Eds.), Textbook of Pain (pp. 1-18). Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone.
Wall, P.D. & McMahon, S.B. (1986). The relationship of perceived pain to afferent nerve impulses. Trends in Neurosciences, 9, 254-255.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, is assistant professor, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, department of anesthesiology, Pittsburgh, PA.
Issue Index

reply from: galen

8-10 weeks IS the first trimester...duh?

reply from: galen

the JAMA debate..
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/295/2/159-a

reply from: 4choice4all

You are spamming....which of your articles discuss first trimester fetuses? Care to highlight...or is this diversion?

reply from: Hosea

Baby's feeo pain. They thrash around trying to move away from the suction device. See the proof
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxvshMADC7s0

reply from: galen

please ac tually read the papers before asking half formed questions...
it seems to me that instead of reading the material and trying to understand why the researchers and doctors feel as they do that you are skimming and going off on a tangent..
I am answering your request for info as fully as i can... this actually was a topic of my own lesson plans at the U.
I also put a question to you about why if there is the slightest chance a child could feel pain and/or fear / terror you would subject it to an abortion ... and you did not answer that either.

reply from: faithman

It is a good thing to keep posting ifo for those who truely want to know. But don't think it will make a bit of difference to this sold out death scanc.

reply from: galen

*******************
No if you actually READ the articles through... you would see the progression... ALL of them speak of pain ... the fetus developes from conception onward... i am adressing the whole issue... the majority Do speak of the 1st trimester...

reply from: Hosea

I believe they feel pain but, let's sa you are right. Should we be able to painlessly euthanize our born children or for that matter any person in our lives that cause us distress. Our children are dependent upon us and so are sick family members shoudl they be painlessly euthanized by our CHOICE.

reply from: galen

It is a good thing to keep posting ifo for those who truely want to know. But don't think it will make a bit of difference to this sold out death scanc.
*********************************
I did this to Yukki and Vexing... it eventually works... unless they are scared that they are wrong... or just liars to themselves.

reply from: 4choice4all

I am reading...you posted a bunch of stuff...and I'm trying to find your proof of fetal pain and terror being present in the first trimester. Not that the possibility is beginning...that's part of development....but I'm looking for the answer...that yes, of course, at 8-10 weeks there is fetal pain and emotion(terror is emotion)...not response to stimulation(that's reflex).

reply from: galen

what kind of evidence are you looking for? The fact that the nerve endings are there and they connect to the spinal cord .. is enough for me... but i also know that Lazarus movements in response to pain.. ARE percieved in diffrent ways by adultsa and children...
what YOU call reflex movements still can be felt at a milisecond point after the jerk away from the burn or other painfull stimulus( like having your leg chopped off)
go to any NICU and you will see that the staff medicate for pain MORE agressively than they do with adults... The sensory nerves at 7-10 weeks are there and connected...you can say reflex all you like , but the hormones for stress go us, and the heartrate and few brain waves go haywire.. ( these are children born in hospitals to parents who wanted them and allowed research to be conducted) so please answer the question... if there is the slightest chance that you are causing pain and fear/ terror... why would you do so?

reply from: galen

try also reading the Theorem by douglas arone.. a VERY interesting book on the subject of fetal psychological development...

reply from: 4choice4all

Thomas Messe's statement offers no support of his statement that yes, 7 weeks..they feel pain. And he describes them as victims...obviously there's some bias,lol. He claims, despite medical evidence contrary, that abortion is linked to breast cancer. He is catholic and prolife....he offers no medical support for that statement. It is a belief..not fact.
Second post says "20 weeks and beyond, they feel pain"...that's not first trimester. Dr. Paul Ranalli is part of Physicians for Life. Evidence requires more than a doctor making a statement of belief that is not grounded in medicine or science.
Third posts discusses fetal pain late in development and neonate pain.
Again...where is the medical/scientific info on first trimester pain and emotion?

reply from: 4choice4all

I don't want what is "good enough" for you...I want articles....peer reviewed, not one prolifers take....research papers....statements by medical groups..that's proof.
I didn't call it reflex...the doctors that witnessed it called it reflex. The doctors that recognize that pain and emotion are connected to brain development...and that level of brain development is not there in the first trimester.
The NICU is NOT full of first trimester fetuses. This is not about what I say or you say....what does the medical COMMUNITY say.

reply from: galen

where is it not?
again i ask what type of proof do you want... a talking 8 weeker to walk up to you and say ... 'hey i feel pain'?
the reverse is also true... you offer no unbiased proof that they do not feel pain( personally i don't put too much stck in bias... we are ALL biased in one way or another.. to me its just a dodge to get around info you don't like)
Answer the question please...
If there is even the slightest chance that you could cause pain or fear/terror... in a child during an abortion why would you do it?

reply from: galen

**********************************
Go read the FULL JAMA debate...
BTW you can't discredit good research just because you don't like a doc's religion.... that is like saying that you discredit Obama just because you don't like black people... its dumb.

reply from: Skippy

But you cannot assure that no harm will come to the woman forced to carry the pregnancy. As a matter of fact, it is far more likely that harm WILL come to her.
Here is a partial list of temporary and permanent, common and less common possible side effects of pregnancy:
Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
* exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
* altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
* nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
* heartburn and indigestion
* constipation
* weight gain
* dizziness and light-headedness
* bloating, swelling, fluid retention
* hemmorhoids
* abdominal cramps
* yeast infections
* congested, bloody nose
* acne and mild skin disorders
* skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
* mild to severe backache and strain
* increased headaches
* difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
* increased urination and incontinence
* bleeding gums
* pica
* breast pain and discharge
* swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
* difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
* inability to take regular medications
* shortness of breath
* higher blood pressure
* hair loss
* tendency to anemia
* curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
* infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
* extreme pain on delivery
* hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
* continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
* stretch marks (worse in younger women)
* loose skin
* permanent weight gain or redistribution
* abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
* pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
* changes to breasts
* varicose veins
* scarring from episiotomy or c-section
* other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
* increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
* loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Occasional complications and side effects:
* spousal/partner abuse
* hyperemesis gravidarum
* temporary and permanent injury to back
* severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
* dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
* pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
* eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
* gestational diabetes
* placenta previa
* anemia (which can be life-threatening)
* thrombocytopenic purpura
* severe cramping
* embolism (blood clots)
* medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
* diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
* mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
* serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
* hormonal imbalance
* ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
* broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
* hemorrhage and
* numerous other complications of delivery
* refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
* aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
* severe post-partum depression and psychosis
* research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
* research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
* research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
Less common (but serious) complications:
* peripartum cardiomyopathy
* cardiopulmonary arrest
* magnesium toxicity
* severe hypoxemia/acidosis
* massive embolism
* increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
* molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
* malignant arrhythmia
* circulatory collapse
* placental abruption
* obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
* future infertility
* permanent disability
* death
I would say the number of women who do not experience any of these side effects or complications is pretty small. And don't even start with "But pregnancy is what women were designed for!" I am merely addressing your assertion that mandatory adoption is acceptable if "no harm comes to the mother."

reply from: BossMomma

No, at 8-10 weeks there is no sentience or emotion, this fact however is irrelevant.

reply from: BossMomma

Sentience and sensation are two different and very irrelevant things where abortion is concerned. If it is immoral to anesthatize and dismember a born child it is just as wrong to do it to an unborn one.

reply from: BossMomma

But you cannot assure that no harm will come to the woman forced to carry the pregnancy. As a matter of fact, it is far more likely that harm WILL come to her.
Here is a partial list of temporary and permanent, common and less common possible side effects of pregnancy:
Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
* exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
* altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
* nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
* heartburn and indigestion
* constipation
* weight gain
* dizziness and light-headedness
* bloating, swelling, fluid retention
* hemmorhoids
* abdominal cramps
* yeast infections
* congested, bloody nose
* acne and mild skin disorders
* skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
* mild to severe backache and strain
* increased headaches
* difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
* increased urination and incontinence
* bleeding gums
* pica
* breast pain and discharge
* swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
* difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
* inability to take regular medications
* shortness of breath
* higher blood pressure
* hair loss
* tendency to anemia
* curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
* infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
* extreme pain on delivery
* hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
* continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
* stretch marks (worse in younger women)
* loose skin
* permanent weight gain or redistribution
* abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
* pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
* changes to breasts
* varicose veins
* scarring from episiotomy or c-section
* other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
* increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
* loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Occasional complications and side effects:
* spousal/partner abuse
* hyperemesis gravidarum
* temporary and permanent injury to back
* severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
* dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
* pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
* eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
* gestational diabetes
* placenta previa
* anemia (which can be life-threatening)
* thrombocytopenic purpura
* severe cramping
* embolism (blood clots)
* medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
* diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
* mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
* serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
* hormonal imbalance
* ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
* broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
* hemorrhage and
* numerous other complications of delivery
* refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
* aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
* severe post-partum depression and psychosis
* research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
* research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
* research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
Less common (but serious) complications:
* peripartum cardiomyopathy
* cardiopulmonary arrest
* magnesium toxicity
* severe hypoxemia/acidosis
* massive embolism
* increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
* molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
* malignant arrhythmia
* circulatory collapse
* placental abruption
* obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
* future infertility
* permanent disability
* death
I would say the number of women who do not experience any of these side effects or complications is pretty small. And don't even start with "But pregnancy is what women were designed for!" I am merely addressing your assertion that mandatory adoption is acceptable if "no harm comes to the mother."
Complications
You can have
With your abortion.
Bladder Injury
If your uterus is perforated, your urinary bladder can be perforated, too. This can also cause peritonitis (an inflamed, infected lining of the abdomen) with all of its pain, dangers and necessary reparative surgery.
Bowel Injury
If your uterus is perforated, your intestines can be perforated, too. This will cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fever, blood in stool, peritonitis (an inflamed, infected lining of the abdomen) and death if not treated quickly enough. A portion of the intestine may have to be taken out, and a temporary or permanent colostomy may be put in your abdomen.
Breast Cancer
Women who have aborted have significantly higher rates of breast cancer later in life. Breast cancer has risen by 50% in America since abortion became legal in 1973.
Ectopic (Tubal) Pregnancy
An ectopic pregnancy is any pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus. After an abortion, you are 8 to 20 times more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy. If not discovered soon enough, an ectopic pregnancy ruptures, and you can bleed to death if you do not have emergency surgery. Statistics show a 30% increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after one abortion and a 160% increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after two or more abortions. There has been a threefold increase in ectopic pregnancies in the U.S. since abortion was legalized. In 1970, the incidence was 4.8 per 1,000 live births. By 1980 it was 14.5 per 1,000 births.
Effects on Future Pregnancies
If you have an abortion:
(1) You will be more likely to bleed in the first three months of future pregnancies.
(2) You will be less likely to have a normal delivery in future pregnancies.
(3) You will need more manual removal of placenta more often and there will be more complications with expelling the baby and its placenta.
(4) Your next baby will be twice as likely to die in the first few months of life.
(5) Your next baby will be three to four times as likely to die in the last months of his first year of life.
(6) Your next baby may have a low birth weight.
(7) Your next baby is more likely to be born prematurely with all the dangerous and costly problems that entails.

Failed Abortion
Failure to successfully abort the unborn younger than 6 weeks is relatively common. Sometimes, an abortionist fails to evacuate the placenta from the uterus. This means the pregnancy continues even though mother has endured the dangers and cost of an abortion.
Hemorrhage
One to fourteen percent of women require a blood transfusion due to bleeding from an abortion.
Hepatitis
This can occur if you have to have a blood transfusion after an abortion.
Infection
Mild fever and sometimes death occurs when there is an infection from an abortion. This happens in anywhere from 1 in 4 women to 1 in 50 women.
Laceration of the Cervix
About 1 out of 20 women suffer this during an abortion. This causes you to have nearly a 50/50 chance of miscarrying in your next pregnancy if it is not treated properly during that pregnancy. A high incidence of cervical damage from the abortion procedure has raised the incidence of miscarriage 30-40% in women who have had abortions.
More Miscarriages Later
Women who have had two or more abortions have twice as many first trimester miscarriages in later pregnancies. There is a ten-fold increase in the number of second trimester miscarriages in pregnancies that follow a vaginal abortion.
Perforation of the Uterus
Women suffer a perforated uterus in between 1 out of 40 and 1 out of 400 abortions. This almost always causes peritonitis (an inflamed, infected lining of the abdomen), similar to having a ruptured appendix.
Placenta Previa
Placenta previa occurs 6 to 15 times more often after a woman has had an abortion. In this condition your baby's placenta lies over the exit from the uterus so that the placenta has to be delivered before the baby can get out. This causes the mother to bleed severely while the baby almost always dies, unless your obstetrician recognizes this condition and removes the baby by Caesarean section at just the right time in the pregnancy.
Post-Abortion Syndrome
Frequently after an abortion, women suffer a range of mental and psychological problems. These may include recurrent dreams of the abortion experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbances, guilt about surviving, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, suicidal thoughts or actions, depression, and substance abuse. These problems may occur days to years later.
Retained Products of Conception
If your doctor leaves pieces of the baby, placenta, umbilical cord, or amniotic sac in your body, you may develop pain, bleeding, or a low grade fever. Besides antibiotics and possible hospitalization, you may require additional surgery to remove these remaining pieces.
RH Incompatibility
Your doctor should be sure of your baby's Rh blood type if you are Rh-negative, so that he can protect you and your next baby against future Rh incompatibilities. These Rh incompatibilities can:
. require that future babies will need transfusions soon after birth,
. cause future babies to be born dead because of the incompatibilities,
. cause future babies to die soon after birth because of the Rh incompatibility.
If your doctor doesn't check the blood type of the baby you are going to abort, even in very early suction abortions done before eight weeks, fetal-maternal hemorrhage can occur, thereby sensitizing you if you are Rh-negative.
Severe, Rapid Bleeding
You may develop DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulopathy) from your abortion. This means your blood does not clot and you will bleed uncontrollably. DIC is extremely life threatening and difficult to treat. It occurs in 2 out of 1,000 second trimester abortions.
Sterility
After an abortion you may become sterile. This happens in 1 out of 20 to 1 out of 50 women. The risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one abortion is 3 to 4 times greater than that among women who have not aborted.
Unrecognized Ectopic Pregnancy
Your doctor may try to abort the baby but be unsuccessful because it is developing in your fallopian tube. Unfortunately this tubal pregnancy ruptures later and emergency surgery must be done to save your life. All women in their first trimester should have an ultrasound to make sure they do not have an ectopic pregnancy.
Young Women
Complication rates of abortion increase with younger, teen-age women. However, younger women who carry their babies to term have better births than older women if they get proper care. There is evidence that in 15 to 17 year old women, pregnancy may even be physically healthier than in women of older ages.

"In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazards as abortion. It is a commonly held view that complications are inevitable."
- Dr. Warren Hern, world renowned abortionist
References
A. Arvay et al., "Relation of Abortion to Premature Birth," Review French GYN-OB, vol. 62, no. 81. 1967
F.Avey, Canada Col. Family Physicians, "Pregnant Teens..." Family Practice News, Jan. 15, 1987, p. 14.
Barrett et al., "Induced Abortion, A Risk Factor for Placenta Previa," Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, Dec. 1981, pp. 769-772
W. Cates et al., Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 132, p. 169
Clow & Crompton, "The Wounded Uterus: Pregnancy after Hysterectomy," British Med. Jour. Feb. 10, 1973, p.321
Duenhoelter & Grant, "Complications Following Prostaglandin F-2A Induced Midtrimester Abortion," Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 46, no. 3, Sept. 1975, pp. 247-250
Herlap, New England Jour. of Med., no. 301, 1979, pp. 667-681 G
Hilgers et al., "Fertility Problems Following an Aborted First Pregnancy." In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, edited by S. Lembrych. University Publications of America, 1981, pp. 128-134
Hilgers et al., "Fertility Problems Following an Aborted First Pregnancy." New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publications of America, 1981.
L. Iffy, "Second Trimester Abortions," JAMA, vol. 249, no. 5, Feb. 4, 1983, p. 588.
A. Jakobovits & L. Iffy, "Perinatal Implications of Therapeutic Abortion." Principals and Practice of OB & Perinatalogy, New York, J. Wiley & Sons, 1981, p. 603
Lanska et al., "Mortality from Abortion & Childbirth," JAMA, vol. 250, no. 3 , July 15, 1983, pp. 361-362
Levin et al., "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499
Levin et al., JAMA, vol. 243, 1982, p. 2495
E. McAnarney, "Pregnancy May Be Safer," OB-GYN News, Jan. 1978 Pediatrics, vol. 6, no. 2, Feb. 1978, pp. 199-205
D. Nemec et al., "Medical Abortion Complications," OB & GYN, vol. 51, no. 4, April 1978, pp. 433-436
Panayotou et al., "Induced Abortion & Ectopic Preg." Am J.OB-GYN, 1972 114:507
Puyenbeck and Stolte, "Relationship Between Spontaneous and Induced Abortion, and Second Trimester Abortion Subsequently," Europ. J. OB-GYN, Reprod. Biol. 14, 1983, 299-309.
Ratter et al., "Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy," Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480
Richardson & *****son, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4
L. Roth et al., "Increased Menstrual Symptoms Among Women Who Used Induced Abortion," Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 127, Feb. 15, 1977, p. 356
Rubin et al., "Fatal Ectopic Pregnancy After Attempted Induced Abortion," JAMA, vol. 244, no. 15, Oct. 10, 1980
J.A. Stallworthy et al., "Legal Abortion: A Critical Assessment of its Risks," The Lancet, Dec. 4, 1971
L. Talbert, Univ. of NC, "DIC More Common Threat with Use of Saline Abortion," Family Practice News, vol. 5, no. 19, Oct. 1975
D. Trichopoulos et al., "Induced Abortion & Secondary Infertility," British Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 83, Aug. 1976, pp. 645-650
U.S. Dept. H.H.S., Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 33, no. 15, April 20, 1984
White et al., "D.I.C Following Three Mid-Trimester Abortions," Anesthesiology, vol. 58, 1983, pp. 99-100
Wright et al., "Secondary Trimester Abortion after Vaginal Termination of Pregnancy," The Lancet, June 10, 1972
Information prepared by: Laurence J. Burns, D.O., Board Certified in Obstetrics & Gynecology, I. Dale Carroll, M.D., Board Certified in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ronald E. Graeser, D.O., Board Certified in Family Practice.
Additional references found on http://www.ohiolife.org/

©2006 Heritage House '76, Inc.
919 S. Main St. Snowflake, AZ 85937
1-800-858-3040 item no. 928YC
reprints and quantity discounts available:
www.hh76.com 09-15-2006

reply from: 4choice4all

No body is supporting forced abortion.....it's a choice and women have to make it for themselves...even weigh the risks. UNLIKE your position that would force gestation irregardless of the risks involved.
Galen....medical proof from peer reviewed medical reports....I don't disregard the doctors for their religion...but for their prolife slant. No wonder they would draw a conclusion counter to common medical thought that supports their ideology. That's not research and that's not science.
BM...thank you for your honesty about fetal brain development. I also agree with you that whether or not the fetus feels pain is irrelevant. Even if I believed they could feel pain(and I do acknowledge that they can at a later stage) it doesn't effect my beliefs on abortion.

reply from: BossMomma

I am training to be a medical assistant, I do not slant facts whether they disagree with my cause or not. No, a first trimester fetus cannot feel as they lack the forebrain which permits feeling and sentience in latter stages. The brain stem controls involuntary reflexes such as breathing and heart beat . That is however irrelevant unless you support the killing of born humans under anesthesia or coma.

reply from: Skippy

But you cannot assure that no harm will come to the woman forced to carry the pregnancy. As a matter of fact, it is far more likely that harm WILL come to her.
Here is a partial list of temporary and permanent, common and less common possible side effects of pregnancy:
{snip list}
I would say the number of women who do not experience any of these side effects or complications is pretty small. And don't even start with "But pregnancy is what women were designed for!" I am merely addressing your assertion that mandatory adoption is acceptable if "no harm comes to the mother."
Complications
You can have
With your abortion.
{snip list}
Yes, abortion has risks, just like pregnancy and childbirth have risks. And women are perfectly capable of evaluating those risks and choosing the option that carries a set of possible side effects and complications that they are willing to live with.
Forced gestation is bad. Forced abortion is bad. The government shouldn't be in the business of compelling either one.

reply from: BossMomma

But you cannot assure that no harm will come to the woman forced to carry the pregnancy. As a matter of fact, it is far more likely that harm WILL come to her.
Here is a partial list of temporary and permanent, common and less common possible side effects of pregnancy:
{snip list}
I would say the number of women who do not experience any of these side effects or complications is pretty small. And don't even start with "But pregnancy is what women were designed for!" I am merely addressing your assertion that mandatory adoption is acceptable if "no harm comes to the mother."
Complications
You can have
With your abortion.
{snip list}
Yes, abortion has risks, just like pregnancy and childbirth have risks. And women are perfectly capable of evaluating those risks and choosing the option that carries a set of possible side effects and complications that they are willing to live with.
Forced gestation is bad. Forced abortion is bad. The government shouldn't be in the business of compelling either one.
Funny though how you left those potential complications off, the ones involved with carrying a baby to term were all you were interested in so I thought I'd even it up a tad.

reply from: sander

But you cannot assure that no harm will come to the woman forced to carry the pregnancy. As a matter of fact, it is far more likely that harm WILL come to her.
Here is a partial list of temporary and permanent, common and less common possible side effects of pregnancy:
Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
* exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
* altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
* nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
* heartburn and indigestion
* constipation
* weight gain
* dizziness and light-headedness
* bloating, swelling, fluid retention
* hemmorhoids
* abdominal cramps
* yeast infections
* congested, bloody nose
* acne and mild skin disorders
* skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
* mild to severe backache and strain
* increased headaches
* difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
* increased urination and incontinence
* bleeding gums
* pica
* breast pain and discharge
* swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
* difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
* inability to take regular medications
* shortness of breath
* higher blood pressure
* hair loss
* tendency to anemia
* curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
* infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
* extreme pain on delivery
* hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
* continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
* stretch marks (worse in younger women)
* loose skin
* permanent weight gain or redistribution
* abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
* pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
* changes to breasts
* varicose veins
* scarring from episiotomy or c-section
* other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
* increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
* loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Occasional complications and side effects:
* spousal/partner abuse
* hyperemesis gravidarum
* temporary and permanent injury to back
* severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
* dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
* pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
* eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
* gestational diabetes
* placenta previa
* anemia (which can be life-threatening)
* thrombocytopenic purpura
* severe cramping
* embolism (blood clots)
* medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
* diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
* mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
* serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
* hormonal imbalance
* ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
* broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
* hemorrhage and
* numerous other complications of delivery
* refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
* aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
* severe post-partum depression and psychosis
* research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
* research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
* research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
Less common (but serious) complications:
* peripartum cardiomyopathy
* cardiopulmonary arrest
* magnesium toxicity
* severe hypoxemia/acidosis
* massive embolism
* increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
* molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
* malignant arrhythmia
* circulatory collapse
* placental abruption
* obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
* future infertility
* permanent disability
* death
I would say the number of women who do not experience any of these side effects or complications is pretty small. And don't even start with "But pregnancy is what women were designed for!" I am merely addressing your assertion that mandatory adoption is acceptable if "no harm comes to the mother."
Have you ever been pregnant, dumbass?
Have you ever read the side effects of asprin, idiot.

reply from: sander

There are side effects to taking an asprin....don't be a jackass your whole life.

reply from: Skippy

I am puzzled as to why some of these folks don't (can't? won't?) see the difference.
No one is forcing anyone to take aspirin. Everyone gets to weight the risks and benefits, and decide for themselves.
No one is forcing any pregnant women to have an abortion. They all get to weigh the risks and benefits, and decide for themselves.
So in what universe does forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy, after she has weighed the risks and benefits and decided she wants to end it, make any sense to anybody?

reply from: MC3

Skippy:
You stated that, "No one is forcing any pregnant women to have an abortion. They all get to weigh the risks and benefits, and decide for themselves."
You are lying through your teeth on both counts - and you know it. I have personally dealt with thousands of post-abortive women over the years and I can assure you that few of them were told of the full extent of the risks they faced.
Further, every single day in this country, girls and women are forced to have abortions by parents, husbands or boyfriends. Even more regrettable, it is not at all uncommon for these women and girls to be threatened, assaulted or killed when they refuse to comply. Of course, since you clearly have no problem forcing the unborn to "have" abortions, I'm certain this will be of no concern to you. It seems that, as long as someone dies, you're satisfied.

reply from: sk1bianca

most women who have an abortion don't do it because they want to avoid the risks of pregnancy. they do it because they don't want a child.
if a woman wants children she faces the risks of pregnancy.
(by the way... if it's so horribly dangerous, why do people keep having kids?)
i'm sure that if women were offered real help from family and friends many abortions wouldn't happen. these women are forced to abort because of lack of support. they are told that abortion "is the best choice" because the people who should stand by their side are lazy and selfish and don't want to help with the baby.

reply from: sk1bianca

try this: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/795001-overview

reply from: Skippy

Exactly. I don't advocate forced abortions. I don't know anyone else who does either. I do, however, advocate letting every woman decide for herself what is best for her, because I do not believe anyone is more qualified than the person in a particular situation to make decisions about risks, benefits, and options.

reply from: lukesmom

So why are you trolling here? You aren't here to learn but to "grace" us all with your ignorance and unwillingness to learn and accept medical fact? Troll.

reply from: lukesmom

There are side effects to breathing in many places. Does that mean you shouldn't breathe? Try it.

reply from: lukesmom

Slapping forehead! What is the matter with these people? Once she is ALREADY pregnant, no choice, the deed is done and another separate human life has begun. Get it?!

reply from: BossMomma

ok then
Therapeutic medical abortion; Elective medical abortion; Induced abortion
Risks:
Risks of medical (nonsurgical) abortion include:
Continued bleeding
Diarrhea
Fetus not passing completely from body, making surgery necessary
Nausea
Pain
Vomiting
Reviewed last on: 2/9/2009 12:00:00 AM
Linda Vorvick, MD, Family Physician, Seattle Site Coordinator, Lecturer, Pathophysiology, MEDEX Northwest Division of Physician Assistant Studies, University of Washington School of Medicine. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Medical Director, A.D.A.M., Inc.
Alternative Names Return to top
Suction curettage; Surgical abortion; Elective abortion - surgical; Therapeutic abortion - surgical
Definition Return to top
A surgical abortion is a procedure that ends a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the mother's womb (uterus).
There are different types of surgical abortion.
Sometimes the woman needs the procedure for a health reason. This is called a therapeutic abortion.
Other times, she chooses (elects) to end the pregnancy. This is called an elective abortion.
See also:
Medical abortion
Miscarriage
Description Return to top
A surgical abortion uses a vacuum to remove the fetus and related material from a woman's uterus (womb). The procedure is usually done after 6 weeks of the woman's last menstrual period
You may receive medicine (sedative) to help you relax and feel sleepy. The doctor may numb the cervix so you feel little pain during the procedure.
If the surgical abortion is done after 12 weeks of pregnancy, the doctor must first open (dilate) the cervical canal. Small sticks called laminaria are placed into the cervix to help it open. Sometimes, this is done a day or two before the actual abortion procedure. Next, the doctor inserts a hollow tube into the womb before using the vacuum to remove the pregnancy-related tissues from the womb.
Medicines may be given to help the uterine muscles contract. This reduces bleeding.
Return to top
There are several reasons a surgical abortion might be considered:
The developing baby has a birth defect or genetic problem
The pregnancy is harmful to the woman's health (therapeutic abortion)
The pregnancy resulted after a traumatic event such as rape or incest
The woman may not wish to be pregnant (elective abortion)
The decision to end a pregnancy is very personal. Most health care providers recommend careful counseling before making such a decision.
Abortion is a controversial issue. A woman who chooses to end a pregnancy may feel she cannot share her decision with others. Therefore, it is important for her to identify those who may help her through what may be a difficult time.
Women who are trying to make this difficult decision should find a safe place in which they can obtain counseling regarding all options for pregnancy resolution.
If a woman chooses to have an abortion, she should find a safe place to have the procedure performed and obtain the proper support and follow-up care afterwards.
Risks Return to top
Risks of surgical abortion include:
Damage to the womb or cervix
Emotional or psychological distress
Excessive bleeding
infection of the uterus or fallopian tubes
The risks of surgical abortion increase as a woman gets further along in her pregnancy. That's why it's important to make a decision about abortion as early as possible, when the procedure is safest.
The risks for any anesthesia are:
Reactions to medications
Problems breathing
The risks for any surgery are:
Bleeding
Infection
Call your health care provider if you have had a surgical abortion and you have:
Excessive vaginal bleeding (may lead to shock)
Continued pain or pregnancy symptoms (possible sign of ectopic pregnancy)
Signs of infection, including persistent fever, vaginal drainage with a foul odor, vaginal drainage that looks like pus, or abdominal pain or tenderness
Return to top
Complications rarely occur. Most women who have a surgical abortion in an appropriate medical center recover without any physical complications.
Some women may need psychological and emotional support at the time of their procedure. It's important to seek counseling before making this very difficult decision.
Return to top
Physical recovery usually occurs within a few days, depending on the stage of the pregnancy. A small amount of vaginal bleeding and mild uterine cramping should be expected for a few days.
A hot bath or use of a heating pad or hot water bottle on the abdomen may help relieve discomfort. Strenuous activity should be avoided for a few days following an abortion. Tampons may be used after 3 days. Sexual intercourse should be avoided for 2 to 3 weeks. A normal menstrual period should occur 4 to 6 weeks after the operation.
It's important to begin using birth control immediately after the abortion procedure. It is possible to get pregnant again even before having a normal menstrual period. Improved methods of contraception can help prevent many unplanned pregnancies. However, unplanned pregnancies occur even when couples use birth control. See also: Emergency contraception
References Return to top
Mischell DR. Family planning: contraception, sterilization, and pregnancy termination. In: Katz VL, Lentz GM, Lobo RA, Gershenson DM, eds. Comprehensive Gynecology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Mosby Elsevier; 2007:chap 14.
Simpson JL, Jauniaux ERM. Pregnancy loss. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, eds. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2007:chap 24.
Annas GJ, Elias S. Legal and ethical issues in obstetric practice. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, eds. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2007:chap 51.
Update Date: 2/19/2009
Updated by: Linda Vorvick, MD, Family Physician, Seattle Site Coordinator, Lecturer, Pathophysiology, MEDEX Northwest Division of Physician Assistant Studies, University of Washington School of Medicine; and Susan Storck, MD, FACOG, Chief, Eastside Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Redmond, Washington; Clinical Teaching Faculty, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Medical Director, A.D.A.M., Inc.
The information provided herein should not be used during any medical emergency or for the diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. A licensed physician should be consulted for diagnosis and treatment of any and all medical conditions. Call 911 for all medical emergencies. Links to other sites are provided for information only -- they do not constitute endorsements of those other sites. Copyright 1997-2009, A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.

reply from: nancyu

So why are you trolling here? You aren't here to learn but to "grace" us all with your ignorance and unwillingness to learn and accept medical fact? Troll.
Isn't that what ALL the pro aborts are doing here? Why are they here? Do you know? Neither do I.
"Troll." What an understatement. You are too kind to these monsters. Even calling them "death scanc nazis" is too kind. We're all too kind to these murderous monsters.

reply from: lukesmom

So why are you trolling here? You aren't here to learn but to "grace" us all with your ignorance and unwillingness to learn and accept medical fact? Troll.
Isn't that what ALL the pro aborts are doing here? Why are they here? Do you know? Neither do I.
"Troll." What an understatement. You are too kind to these monsters. Even calling them "death scanc nazis" is too kind. We're all too kind to these murderous monsters.
They make statements like that, then have the nerve to call prolifers uncompassionate. You are right, troll is too nice. I can't think of a word low enough for a proabort.

reply from: 4choice4all

The heading to the forum says it's open to both sides...which I was I ventured in. Now I stay to arm myself with knowledge about the other side and the common rhetoric espoused. oh...and for the random bit of decent dialogue that is to be found.

reply from: Faramir

So why are you trolling here? You aren't here to learn but to "grace" us all with your ignorance and unwillingness to learn and accept medical fact? Troll.
Isn't that what ALL the pro aborts are doing here? Why are they here? Do you know? Neither do I.
"Troll." What an understatement. You are too kind to these monsters. Even calling them "death scanc nazis" is too kind. We're all too kind to these murderous monsters.
Nancyu, sander, and faithman--top trolls of the forum, fyi.
They are here to bully and for self-gratification.
No "pro-abort" has come close to their trollishness.

reply from: sander

Slapping forehead! What is the matter with these people? Once she is ALREADY pregnant, no choice, the deed is done and another separate human life has begun. Get it?!
They get it, they're just too self absorbed to care. They take self centeredness to new heights.
They would just rather not take personal responsibility and don't want anyone else to have to either.
Lazy little vermins.

reply from: sander

More BS.
If you cared one iota about women you'd want them fully informed, including all the dirty dealings that are swept under the table ad nauseum.
Women aren't even informed of the breast cancer link, you liar.

reply from: galen

many lower animals do not have forebrains... that does not mean no pain... pain and fear are VERY primitive responses that are used for the survival of an organism... even jellyfish respons to noxious stimuli.
Anyhow to mean the fact that you would not have pause to kill something if you are causing it pain... makes the act of killing even more horrible.
Everyone in the medical community has a stance on abortion... either for or against...researchers are ALWAYS going to be biased for or against something.... to be honest i respect someone who is upfront about thier biases more than i respect someone who claims they have none....
The ones who claim to be unbiased are not being truthful...everyone has an opinion on the things they do... any scientist who can not admit thier biases is not worthy of thier salt...

reply from: Faramir

BS
See for yourself under "the forum":
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/

reply from: MC3

Skippy:
Your response to my last post was to say that you did not "advocate" forced abortion.
Of course, that's a straw man argument. As you well know, I never once said that you were advocating forced abortion. I simply challenged your assertion that, "No one is forcing any pregnant women to have an abortion." Why can't you just admit that you were lying through your teeth and got caught?
Also, you stated that you are for "letting every woman decide for herself what is best for her." You based this conclusion, you said, on the view that no one "... is more qualified than the person in a particular situation to make decisions about risks, benefits, and options."
The question is, under this philosophy, why should a woman lose the right to "decide for herself what is best for her" simply by the act of giving birth? I mean, what if a year later she decides that in her "particular situation" it is best that she be allowed to drown her 1-year-old. In that case, wouldn't she still be the most "qualified" person to "make decisions about risks, benefits, and options?"
If not, please enlighten us as to how the process of having a child emerge from her body causes her to lose this talent. It appears to be some sort of mysterious phenomenon that only affects the mom since the only difference in the baby is a change of location and another year of development. And it seems logical that neither of those would lessen the mother's capacity for sound decision making.

reply from: faithman

You forget about the magic vagina. Before passage, blob...after passage,person...

reply from: Banned Member

Women should be legally obligated to review all available and pertinent data regarding abortion, abortion risks as well as review images of what she will be killing before she has an abortion.
Often, through willful ignorance or a strong immediate reaction which is not thought out, the pregnant woman who is making the "choice" is probably the least qualified to be making "choices" for herself about abortion.
Abortion is murder.

reply from: siri

Wow, the amount of hate from "prolife" (I put it in quotes because most antiabortion people support war, the death penalty and killing animals for food, etc.) people is so over the top that I remember now why I have never tried to have a dialogue with any. 4choice4all, hang in there, if you're still there(I don't blame you if you left). Galen, you're coherent and seem compassionate, if unrealistic. I originally wanted to break the stalemate between you two, I'm not real interested in conversation with most of the rest of these people. So, re. the question, why would one support abortion if there was even the slightest chance that the fetus could feel pain, terror, etc. Answer: the same reason why people support experimenting on laboratory animals (which I feel as strongly negative about as you do about abortion): because they think a higher good is involved. In the first case, it would be to find cures for disease; in the 2nd case, it would be to preserve women's bodily autonomy. Theoretically everything possible would be done to minimize that pain and terror--although contrary to someone's earlier posting I must emphasize that anyone who has studied vivsection (the experimenting on of live animals) knows that absolutely ANYTHING can and is done to them and pain is frequently not considered possible or even desirable to prevent (sometimes testing their response to pain is even the stated purpose of the study). I am not a bigoted specieist, ie. a person who believe that human life is more valuable to God than animal life. If you are one, you're not going to make any headway with me because I find that belief really ugly. Either ALL life is precious or none of it is. When you believe all life is precious you may take it, but you don't take it easily and you never take it lightly. People who are consistently prolife (i.e., antiwar, anti death penalty, vegetarian, etc) and who are also antiabortion are people I am willing to learn from, meaning that we MIGHT be able to work together to reduce--even greatly reduce--the number of abortions performed. The best way to do this is to work to empower women to avoid unwanted/unplanned pregnancy in the first place. Unfortunately, my impression of all too many antiabortion people --atleast the activists I see on tv--is that they are religious fundamentalist extremists and antifeminists who would end not only abortion, but contraception. Most contraception designed for women's bodies hurts women's bodies and this is something to be concerned with, but this is not where the religious right is coming from. Condoms hurt no one and they are even against them. They simply don't like the idea of sexuality having any value beyond the procreative. I'm saying 'they' rather than 'you all' because I'm assuming most of the people on this forum and I have little to discuss. I am willing to have a dialogue with Galen and a couple of others because she talks intelligently rather than name calls. Most people don't want to see abortion illegal. You do. I would like to see animal experimentation become illegal, but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it's not going to happen until good people realize that there are alternatives to animal research. Abortion is different than anything we do to animals, because the fetus lives inside the woman's body. The issue of fetal rights is in conflict with the issue of the woman's rights, and something has to give.
Here are some things I could meet Galen half way on: Western medical abortion, like patriarchal western medicine in general, is brutal, to the woman and the fetus. There are gentler less invasive alternatives, like herbally induced/massage-induced miscarriage (which, yes, is a form of abortion. But one of the things that has been discussed is the issue of the woman's safety). Two: a woman who is going to have an abortion needs to talk with the soul of her fetus beforehand, and consult with him/her as much as possible. The native Americans consulted beforehand with the souls of the animals they killed for food. Such things are repugnant to purists on both issues: people who believe under no circumstances may we take a human life, or an animal life. And so great suffering continues, because of this stubbornness on both sides. (I know. I used to be a very angry vegetarian. I didn't want to hear about more humane ways to kill animals, even if it would lessen suffering). Three: no being should be put out with the trash. I had my cat cremated because I didn't have a place to bury her and I wasn't going to toss her out with the garbage. The reason fetuses are killed and then disposed of with no ceremony is because we live in a throwaway culture in general. Four: the atheist abortion doctor who said there is no God was wrong, and someone like that shouldn't be performing abortions--or delivering babies, for that matter. I can hear it now: she doesn't get it. She thinks we'll be satisfied with these compromises. But I do get it. I know most of you won't. I'm speaking to the few reasonable people here. Five: I/people may be wrong about fetal pain. I had heard that before the fetus was dismembered (which is an unnecessary way to perform an abortion as mentioned previously) its heart was first stopped with an injection. I would be horrified to learn this was not the case, as would, hopefully, most people. I will ask prochoice people about this. I can't see what it would hurt to give a fetus pain medication. 4choice4all, I'm afraid I don't trust the judgements about pain vs. reflexes. As someone said, there's a lot we don't know about the human brain, and no one really knows the experience of another. Science has demonstrated its tendency to commit atrocities against laboratory animals because it didn't care about what were just "reflexes". Better to err on the side of too much caution here rather than too little! Six: in a perfect world there would be little or no abortion. There would also be no eating of animal products, because scientists will have discovered convincing alternatives. Seven: I'm only showing part of myself here. I could tell you that when I saw the photos of how fully formed some of the faces of aborted fetuses were, and then heard that the numbers of abortions that have been performed are in the millions--I was stricken. What is the karmic consequence of all this death? What are we doing here, and for how many generations will it haunt us? But I can't share too much of that with people I don't know, and don't trust. The hate I have seen on this website has confirmed my worst fears. I am afraid of my compassion being misused to further a larger agenda. Bottom line, I can't dialogue with people that would take away my rights. Someone said something earlier about 4for4 not being here to learn. But learning goes both ways. I cannot/will not learn from people who can't see my basic humanity, and think they have much to teach, but nothing to learn themselves. If this doesn't apply to you, and you're really interested in some dialogue so that we can find solutions to the pain on ALL sides then I am willing to talk with you. Everyone else will be ignored. In the meantime I will take what I have learned from the prolife/antiabortion writings I have read and share them with other prochoice people.

reply from: yoda

1. Make paragraphs if you want your post to be read.
2. General comments about how you feel about your opponents have no value here.
3. If you really want to support abortion, tell us why you think it's okay for a healthy woman to electively kill her healthy baby before birth.
Otherwise, why are you here?

reply from: sander

Are you new to computers?
New to writing in gerneral?
If you want to make a point, take Yoda's advice or scram because hardly anyone is going to wade thru that long of a piece...ask CP, he has been the resident wind bag before you showed up.

reply from: Faramir

CP actually says things and makes thoughtful and intelligent posts, unlike a particular poster whose posts are either suckups to yoda or the board owner, or are personal attacks, and are void of any real substance.

reply from: Banned Member

I hate to agree with Yoda & sand...you have no idea how much I hate it...but your post is difficult to read. Please make paragraphs.

reply from: Shenanigans

I'm a bit late to the party here, but this is the thing, if 2nd and 3rd timester abortions bother you and first tris don't then you're a hypocrite. Its the same child, the same life, in the same place. The new born isn't sentient and it wouldn't care if you killed it, sure, it'd probably cry as a reflex to pain, but only as a reaction, just like if you kick a lamb, its a reflex.
Life begins at conception.
If you don't believe that or accept that the 6 week embryo is a human being, then you're a dunce.
1st trimester abortion "bothers" me like any abortion, or any killing of any human being regardless of their location or developmental stage.
Basically, anything that kills a human being = bad.

reply from: siri

General comments about one's opponents are not valid here? I sure have been reading a lot of assumptions about my "side", not to mention vile--and frightening name calling. (If someone doesn't speak for you, you need to denounce them, not just refrain from joining in). And thanks for the tip, but I will post what I like.
Why do I think it's ok for women to kill their unborn "babies"? Because sometimes they need to, and it's living in their body, and they get to do that. Period. Because they don't want to be pregnant anymore, for whatever reason. Period. Asking questions that are flip will get you curt, flip answers like this. And do I need to tell you why your question is flip? No, because I know you have already read dozens of stories from individual women explaining in detail why their pregnancy was a crisis for them. Stories of why women get abortions are not hard to come by, and I can't give one reason, because every woman's reason is different. Personally-I would not want to give birth to a child that would be adopted out and might come looking for me some day. Why am I here? I am tempted to be flip again and say "for whatever reason I choose to be here." I assume people with antiabortion views do not read only things they agree with. I'm not a plant from any organization, if that's what you're upset about. I guess I'm probably here because of curiosity about who you folks are. I do hope that women (women only, please, atleast while this is still a man's world) can someday come together to address the question of how to reduce abortion in this country/world. Few people see it as an ideal solution to anything, despite the fantasies of some. I know that this is possible, because women in North Dakota formed a discussion group called "Pro Dialogue" (Faye Ginsburg writes about it in her book "Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community") with prochoice/prolife women. And Naomi Klein attended a similar dialogue in her book "Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries".
Why would you ask me why I support abortion? Do you think you can change my mind? Keeping abortion legal is something I am committed to. So why start there, when that's the thing that's not going to budge? I am not trying to get any of you to like abortion. I am not here to justify myself to any of you. I am not asking any of you to justify yourselves to me. What I said was, that if there were people who were prolife in a larger sense (I notice how you ignored that whole thread) re. war, the death penalty, vegetarianism, etc. that we might be able to learn from each other. There is an argument to be made that only in a society in which life is so cheap in general could abortion be so prevalent. This argument is almost never made from the left. It could be.
I attended--you might call it crashed--a talk by the 2nd in command of a group called Feminists for Life. The posters advertising the event showed a pink, raised fist. "We can do better for women than abortion," it said. I was intrigued. I had never met any antiabortion people who described themselves as feminists, let alone used this argument or these kinds of graphics. I had to see what it was about. I knew I would be outnumbered. I knew it would take courage for me to attend, that it would be challenging. I wasn't prepared for the witch hunt that it was.
The women seemed to be all straight, and sexually conservative--not just personally, but in a proscriptive way. You don't want general comments, but the larger movements people are a part of are relevant. The speaker made this comment about young women: "You know, when someone asked young women what would be their number one question about sexuality if they could ask anything they wanted, was? How to say no to a boy without hurting his feelings." There was much head nodding at this. In other words, here is the central truth about young females: they don't have any sexual feelings of their own. If they have sex with a boy, it's just because they don't want to hurt his feelings. Bull*****! I did not dare come out to the room as queer (bisexual). The people were smug. They blithely discussed running other people's lives. I went to the microphone originally to share that I had unease about stem cell research because of its connection to biotech, genetic engineering, etc. and they were with me, then I expressed some--yes, strong--disagreements and the whole room hissed at me. Do you know what it's like to have a whole room of people hiss at you? The left of which I am a part does not encourage me to see the humanity of people who would take women's rights away, yet I was there willing to see that humanity. I was angry, and I was apprehensive, but still open to some possible points of agreement.
I am still open. Not to being proselytized to. But to work with others to restore the sacredness of all life, and to reduce the amount of death. I have already done it in the antiwar movement. There was a discussion of fetal rights in the animal rights magazine The Animals's Agenda. I did not allow people on the left I encountered discussing the Terry Schiavo case to think there was only one reasonable position to take on that issue (they were all pro removing the tube) and I voted against the 'death with dignity' act because of my concerns as a person with a disability. To this day I don't know if I made the right decision on that vote, but it was strategic because I felt we were rushing past and belittling people's concerns and I was indignant at the tone of people on my side, if nothing else. I'm uneasy at the title of the act--every life has dignity, inherently. Enough on that.
This is why I'm here, to carry knowledge back and forth from different communities that demonize each other and don't know who each other are. I want to know who you are. Most of the positive that results from this you will never see, because I will be sharing it with my community. I don't know why they're not allowing me to indent my paragraphs, sorry.

reply from: 4choice4all

Welcome Siri. I'm still around....it's summer and I have 3 kids and we had a busy few days.
Siri....are you Native American or First Nation?

reply from: carolemarie

Welcome to the board.....
the hissing goes both ways....I had a table at a state NOW convention and everyone hated my prolife table, and I agree, it take courage to go to a place and speak up when your views are not wanted....both sides seem to be stuck in a desire to demonize each other....
And I am not for the death penalty either. Prolifers are as diverse as rest of the population....heck, some on this board are all for killing people they disagree with....

reply from: siri

4choice4all--no, not native/first nations, just respect them a lot.

reply from: Shenanigans

You should meet my best mate. She refers to herself as a "big dyk3", she is a lesbian, anti-American, anti-govt, vegan and PRO-LIFE! Her current life partner is a Danish Wiccan.
I think you need to look at it in the persepective of where you are. If you were in any other western countries you'd probably meet a raft of Pro-Lifers who had different life experiences and beleifs then the usual conservative right. Most of my pro-life friends are gay or bi or of alternative faith. In fact, its most of the Christians I've met who are pro-abortion in my country. It doesn't make the pro-lifers you run into who are conservative, christain any more right or wrong in their life applications, just different.
What matters is the desire to assist the mother and protect the life of the unborn child.

reply from: siri

Far out. That's interesting to me. Hope her method--anyone's method-- of protecting the unborn doesn't mean trying to make abortion illegal. If it does I am in fierce struggle with her/others. I understand the people who bomb abortion clinics. (not making any assumptions about her--speaking generally). They see themselves the way animal rights protesters who bomb cosmetics testing labs see themselves--as people of conscience backed against a wall who are trying to stop immediate agony. I also understand the view in both cases that violence is counterproductive. I understand a lot and it seems the more I understand the more confused I get about what to do, who's right, who's wrong.
Just keep talking, I guess, as we work in our different communities. Thanks for sharing.

reply from: yoda

Ah, wonderful...... yet another attack on a prolifer by our resident "suck up to all the proaborts and attack most of the prolifers" poster......
Way to be consistent, you putrid windbag.

reply from: yoda

To be quite honest, I'm not even going to try to read any more long, no paragraph posts from you..... too much eyestrain.
No doubt. I get the fact that you want to see the slaughter of the innocent babies continue unabated. You've made that clear.
What can you say (with paragraphs) in support of your desire to see that happen?

reply from: sander

No doubt. I get the fact that you want to see the slaughter of the innocent babies continue unabated. You've made that clear.
What can you say (with paragraphs) in support of your desire to see that happen?
I thnk the newest sociopath proabort to come to PLA has hit on a way to only communicate with it's fellow murderers and fake prolifers.....type long, make no paragraphs, hint you're a proabort and fart, CM and the up front proaborts will flock to read and coo.
Sickening.

reply from: galen

********************************
To bring you up to speed I am a Catholic, a vegan a pacifist and Prolife...
I think violence against any thing is wrong... and i think that violence against all people and all animals is wrong... i never used it in my research ( a am a retired nurse who worked at a medical school as a prof.)
I think that possibly you have not really thought your position through or you would see where the opinions you express and what you profess about your belife system twards animals and people already born diverge.
You do need to work on separation in your writing and do need to try to post as much as possible in the easiest manner to read... i know its hard... it was for me too when i was undegoing chemo for a brain tumour...but unless you want to be completely ignored you need to make the effort.

reply from: galen

Siri ,
i would say to you that most people don't want to see abortion illegal because thay assume that there is no other option for people who are raped or ill...
i will say proudly that my first son was concieved in a violent rape...when we tell our story about this ( he is now 18) most quickly change thier tune... when i explain that about 1% of all abortions are done for the helth of the mother... they tend to open thier ears a bit more...
no one is ever going to kill abortion for the health of the mother... nor would i or anyone else want them too.. if mom is dead then baby is too in thos cases.
But health of the mom is also what dr Tiller and his ilk use to kill viable almost full term children... for this thier is no reason... mental helath is also a shaky excuse in those terms...
generalizations alow people to NOT have stricter laws on this set of procedures... and that lack of regulation make it more dangerous for women and girls... it is a poor society that allows a girl to walk into an abortion clinic and possible have a doctor butcher her uterous without notifying her parents, and will not allow hwr to walk into a mall and have her ears pierced or a tatoo without a parent.
the procedure because if its secrecy allows bad medicine to thrive , kills and injurs women and girls AND kills innocent children.

reply from: ProInformed

Oh please...
The reason you have never tried to have dialogue with pro-lifers before is because you were warned not to by the same folks who fed you those false negative stereotypes to try to keep you from talking to pro-lifers
AND by your own sneaky suspicion that if you talked to pro-lifers you might LEARN some things that would challenge your status quo POV.
So you found out that SOME pro-lifers are only opposed to the killing if INNOCENT humans, SOME pro-lifers eat meat, wooooo... LOL And therefore you 'think' that all the negative stereotypes you've been fed (by choicists cultists) about pro-lifers 'therefore' must be true...
But you just didn't happen to notice that there are plenty of nasty, hateful abortion industry industry posters here who have consistently revealed their lack of genuine concern for the women the abortion industry lies to, injures, and even kills, eh?
Your own ignorance and closed-mindedness is showing.
Here's some info those who brainwashed you never told you:
http://notmilk.com/abortion2.html

http://realchoice.blogspot.com/

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

reply from: ProInformed

LIAR!
You know full well that THE leading cause of death to pregnant women is being murdered by the pro-abort male biological parent because the woman resists his attempts to FORCE her to abort! AND you choicists choose to pretend that isn't happening and/or is not force. You choicists enable such coercion to continue by failing to condemn those pro-abort male coercers. You chant and complain on and on about pro-lifers supposedly forcing women to give birth but you don't care when pro-abort males force women to abort. You only pretend to be pro-choice and pro-woman; you reveal that you are really only pro-abort.

reply from: lukesmom

I am prolife, Catholic and the mother of 4 earthly children and 2 heavenly children. I am against the death penalty, war and any other types of violence. I also am a nurse and have spent my life in healing, not distroying. I have mainly worked with moms facing a poor or terminal prenatal diagnosis, a small segment of women who are usually given no choices and very little info from the medical community regarding the truth about carrying their child to term. My family is very involved in a nonprofit org started by my mom, that provides anything and just about everything to moms and kids in need. We don't deal in hate and distruction but instead in giving and building up.
Every proabort who comes to this board has an agenda to "save" women from us "haters". It is frustrating and tiring and often the frustrations from being unfairly and untruthfully labeled spills out in a negative way. Admittedly, it is difficult being positive to those who think the only solution to an unwanted pregnancy is to kill the child for the parents and society's convienence.
And, no, I didn't read your very huge commentary, to difficult to read and too time consuming and, forgive me, but mostly likely the same old stuff we get from every other proabort who comes here. That is not a dig but rather an observation from the past few years of being here.

reply from: 4choice4all

Forgive Lukesmom....she's on her meds today apparently and the nice Sue is playing...unlike many MANY other days when the woman that claims to not deal with "hate and destruction" is very hateful and vile.
I have seen the works done by loving and generous prolife groups...I've worked with one. They are no enemy.....they merely have an opposing viewpoint. If all prolifers were like that....I wouldn't need to volunteer for NARAL....we could merely agree to disagree. The fact is that many prolifers are NOT like that...so if the shoe fits.................

reply from: lukesmom

Only to those who are "hateful and vile" to me. My parents told me many years ago, "You don't start a fight but you are allowed to end it." In otherwords, I don't throw the first punch but I will defend myself in kind. I have tried to be nice to you and to other proaborts here but it always ends the same way; being told my children shouldn't be alive, being called a liar and a bad mother and having lies be told about me and my life by people who don't know me.
So continue slandering. I know the truth because I live it. I build, you assist in destroying.

reply from: Banned Member

Galen....I have to ask this, but I want to point out first that I am not trying to poke you or be mean. I respect the fact that you were able to bear & raise a baby that was conceived by rape. But do you honestly think all women should be forced to do the same?
After my attack, all I could think about was what if I got pregnant. Thinking about it made me want to cut my stomach open to get it out. Thankfully, I didn't get pregnant, But I wouldn't have hesitated to get an abortion if I had been.
I'm not sure if you meant it this way, you statement above makes it seem you are proud that you were raped. I have to ask, & I hope you believe I mean no harm in asking, but are you now happy you were raped?

reply from: 4choice4all

I have never said your kids shouldn't be alive...I have never said you are a bad mother....I have no idea what you are talking about. Your first post to me....in one of my first threads was questioning whether my son's life was worthless....are you projecting?

reply from: Banned Member

You know, I would like you to post the proof of this. Now, I've read on other sources that the leading cause of death to pregnant women is murder, so you don't need to post proof of that. I've even read that it is usually by her partner. But please, post your proof that it is always because he is pro-choice, and he demands that she abort, and she won't do it. Prove that he isn't just a murdering, abusive bastard & she would have probably gotten killed anyway. Prove that in some cases, he is not enraged for some reason, like finding out the baby may not be his. Prove that he isn't officially mentally deranged in some way or another & even gave the woman a choice.
All ( or at least all I've ever encountered) pro-choice people are against forced or coerced abortion. We are certainly against a man killing a woman in any situation, not to mention because she is pregnant.
Since you prattle on about it ssssooooo often, please, offer a suggestion how we can remain pro-choice & yet further denounce support against maternal homicide by the father. It's already illegal, so there are no bills for us to support. If any of us ever knew it were about to happen, I assure you we would do what was in our power to stop it. What else is there? Please, enlighten us all.

reply from: lukesmom

Good old Spinwiddy is the one who thinks my kids shouldn't have been born or have been allowed to live and thinks I am a bad mother for not aborting them, I guess.
If I remember correctly, I was asking you a question if you thought your son's life was worth living or if you advocated that people like him should be aborted. As I have said, I also have a special needs child who deserves the life that was already given to him. Prenatal testing, while a worthwhile concept, is often used as a screening tool to ensure parents can abort their child if he/she isn't perfect. My point was your son and my son deserve to live the life they were given as do every other person with the same needs, born and unborn.
I am sorry you took it the wrong way. Maybe you were feeling a little guilty in your views? I thought this was resolved a long time ago. As for being vile and nasty, there are several posts from you that have been far from nice. Maybe you were projecting?

reply from: galen

Am i happy i was raped? NO!.. did i take a horrible situation and use it to inspire me to do something good? perhaps.. diffrent days mean diffrent thoughts on that issue. like anyone else who was raped i will always have my good and bad days.
The fact that you were never pregnant by your rapists means that you only have the ability to know what you thought you wanted to do at the time you were hoping you were not pregnant.
i too went through periods of extreme fear and extreme hatred for the monsters who attacked me. Once i knew i was pregnant i also felt for a period of time that i just could not carry this child... i had nightmares and horrible phobias.. god aweful thoughts about what ifs and what will happens... all those things that you can imagine i felt.. i probably did. One thought though that stopped me at the foot of the stairs to the clinic, was that i was getting ready to force MY will on an innocent child, just as the monsters forced thier will on me...I could not bring myself to do so... ever. I am extremely glad i did not... my son did not deserve to be executed for the sins of his father...
i got through the pregnancy with support from various groups that i was put in touch with ... before the net... by local churches.. people i sought help from when my family turned away from me, and my own mind would not give me peace...
I vowed to become one of those people... and to raise my son to know and repect them... i am happy i did so.
Do i think every woman should raise her rapists baby... no, but adoption is an option open to them... many, many people are still looking for healthy infants. many of the women i have been in counseling with have aborted, and it only made thier problems worse....thier shame and grief are compounded, the women i am in counseling with ( ones in my personal group, not ones i counsel) that have the child, do so knowing that they did not do unto another what was done to them it is a small measure of peace even if you do not keep the child.
It may feel as if society is forcing you to abort... it may feel as if they are forcing you to be pregnant, but the simple fact is that the child/ society , all of them are not forcing anything, the only one/s who did that were the monster/s who raped. They are the criminals not you and not the child.

reply from: 4choice4all

Do you think that woman that abort are bad mothers? So is your position righteous and puts you in position to judge others? When spin does it, it's wrong...but when you do it, somehow...you are right? I personally don't think either assumption is correct...but i can see the irony.
Took it the wrong way? Yeah...after you posted that (I don't want to deal with search,lol) even prolifers bristled and emailed me to try to excuse your behavior.

reply from: S00n2Bm0MmY

ok umm, i just think life is not impossible becuz u have a baby. i think most women have abortions becuz they think a baby is going 2 interfer with their life or goals that they have already set set for themselves. but the thought of someone wripping my lim's off of my body is painful, i think putting a child up for adoption is a better way 2 handle things and as time passes by maybe the mother may have a change of heart. just becuz the baby don't have a sense of caring doesn't mean they don't have a sense in feeling physically. only god knows if the baby has a sense of caring or feeling but since we aren't sure of that i just think we should go with putting them up for an adoption.

reply from: lukesmom

Galen, I am proud to know even in this small way here on the board. You are a wonderful woman and mother.

reply from: Yuuki

It is a living, growing human child. I don't know if you consider that "playing semantics" or not. But it is human, you can't deny that. It is living, it is growing. If it were anywhere but inside of a uterus you would call it a person without pause. Being small and at that stage of development is normal. It is not "undeveloped" in the sense of the word I think you are aiming at.
When most people say "undeveloped", they mean a being is not as developed as it SHOULD be for its age. Like a born child with developmental delays, or who is growing too slowly. They are "underdeveloped" for their age. The unborn child is not "undeveloped" in that sense. It is exactly as developed as it is supposed to be for its age.
Perhaps that is not the sense of the word you are using, but it seems some pro-choicers use the word "undeveloped" as a slur, to say the child is unworthy of life because it isn't as developed as its adult mother. Well of course it's not as developed as she is! She's had quite a few more years than the child has had. But there is nothing wrong with the child being less developed than the mother; this is not a flaw or a deformity. It is completely normal, and shouldn't be treated like a disease.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, she can't mother a dead child; a child she is responsible for killing.
LOL! Righteous? I don't see myself as righteous but instead as human with human failings as anyone else. I don't "judge" others either as I leave that up to God and not humans. I have talked to many moms who have aborted and, here's the funny, many of them have found me to be very compassionate and supportive of them in their grief. I haven't agreed with their decision to abort and have made that known. Here's the irony; you have a special needs child, as do I, yet you advocate the killing of others like them if the mother so chooses.
Isn't that nice, the "mean" prolifers bristling about something that was said to you. I am the one who said it and I was suprised at how you took it. I am sorry you took it in a way not ment, I guess I must have written my thoughts unclearly. I know what I was thinking and I know my intent and it was not ment to hurt you or your son in any way. Why would I do that? Now, that is the end from me as I have again clearly stated my apologies for not being clear in my op and for your being unintentionally hurt. If you continue to want to think ill of me, so be it. Truthfully, what matters is my life and the people in it, not a cyberspace abortion escort.

reply from: Banned Member

Galen, thank you for answering my questions and (hopefully) not taking offense to them.

reply from: siri

Galen- I'm sorry you were raped.

reply from: 4choice4all

Hypocritical is apparently more fitting. Spin is bad for judging you but you are not bad for judging others....hypocrite.
There's nothing ironic about my supporting a woman's right to choose. I don't only advocate it for fetal abnormalities ...nor do I advocate more strongly for it in those situations. I support the woman's right to make that choice for herself.

reply from: siri

I know my first 2 posts were quite long. The ones after that have been short. The 2 long posts take about 1 min. each to read, so--whatever! I find it dehumanizing to be referred to by everyone as a "proabort." I'm a person. And for the record I consider myself more prochoice than proabortion. It's a choice women sometimes have to make, and no one should make it for them. The society we should be working toward should have little need for it, however. If my views and the views of the other "proaborts" are the same old thing--what would be a new thing? What are you looking for?

reply from: 4choice4all

They are looking for repentance and conversion...anything less is unacceptable to those that would call you proabort.
There are quite a few respectful prolifers on the board though. There are also some fanatics...and they can be loud. Like you, I assumed a middle ground could be found in lessening the need(real or imagined) for abortion....thereby reducing them to very small numbers. The rational prolifers will tell you that's a good start.....the irrational ones will continue to froth at the mouth and berate you...and anyone that agrees with you.
Welcome, btw!

reply from: lukesmom

We are all "prochoice". 99% of women have the choice not to have sex and not to become pregnant. Once pregnant there are the choices of raising the child yourself or giving the child to another family to raise. Killing the child before birth is not a choice just as killing a born child is not a choice. You are for abortion therefore you are proabortion, proabort is just a shortened version. It is your choice to be here on a prolife board, if you don't like the terminology, you can chose not to be here. More of a choice than you give unborn humans.

reply from: lukesmom

Sour grapes because the majority of us don't think you are as wonderful as you think you are?

reply from: 4choice4all

Those that would call me proabort buttnugget deathscanc are hardly people whose opinions I value.

reply from: lukesmom

Proabort is short for proabortion. You are for abortion so you are a proabort. I don't see how you would feel that is insulting and you are for abortion. When did I ever call you "buttnugget or deathscanc?

reply from: siri

Yes, we are for abortion in some circumstances. I say "antiabortion people" rather than "antiaborts" or "antichoicers". Because you're people. I take the extra 2 seconds to type in those 6 characters. But it's the attitude behind the terminology that really grates. We suspect you see us in a one dimensional way. I'm still curious to have my last question answered, you said you assumed my post which was supposedly too long to read would contain the same old stuff that prochoice people always post here. I ask again, what would be new stuff to you? What are you looking for?

reply from: Darkmoon

I simply don't believe anyone has the right to use a woman's body against her will. I don't care if it's a fetus, baby or grown individual.

reply from: galen

**********************************
No offense taken, many victims of attack feel the way you did.. its pretty common.
I hope though that you can look at abortion after rape from another POV... the POV of the child concieved.

reply from: galen

*****************
TY

reply from: galen

*****************
me too....

reply from: Shenanigans

Oh for goodness sake.
Seriously?
There are more ways to stop abortion without banning it. If we banned abortion now, what would that achieve? Sure, a LOT of abortions wouldn't happen because a lot of women think that because its legal its okay. But it doesn't help women who are facing job loss, or loss of income, or inability to continue education.
Like her, a lot of us pro-lifers are interested in helping the woman with practical methods like finanical support, free ante and post natal care, assistance with job continuance and education. Make it so there's no reason to get an abortion.
As for banning, start with the LTA which are all the biggest crock of sh1t this side of the Milkyway.
Educate society as to the humanity of the unborn and the damage abortion does to women. Then there will be such a public outcry offer a referendum then ban the bloody homicidal act that abortion is.
Yes.
Because all us crazy anti-choicers want to blow up clinics and snipe on abortionists.
Look at it as a moral purpose.
Killing human life is wrong.
The unborn child is human life.
Ergo, killing unborn children is wrong.
You can't get more wrong then ending the life of a human foetus so the mother can wear a bikini in summer.
I'm happy to talk. I'm happy to share. But I'll be an arse load happier when the precieved "need" for abortion no longer exists and the general populace grows a brain stem and recognises this act of homicide for the horrific act it is.

reply from: Faramir

It's not "anyone" though.
It's not an invader that crept in.
In the vast majority of cases it was "invited" by a consentual participation in the reproductive act.
It was created by the woman and her partner and is her son or daughter.
It didn't ask to be brought into existence. It didn't force itself on the woman. Her reproductive powers brought forth this new life, so how in the world can she then turn around and accuse it of "using" her?

reply from: Hosea

Aborion is stil done the same way. Having your limbs torn off prior to crushing your head sounds painful to me. The baby screams and his heart rate rises for a reason. The baby feels pain.

reply from: 4choice4all

Not allowing a woman to end a pregnancy forcing continued gestation on her. It forces her to act as incubator against her will. If I go to a party and attempt to leave but am not allowed...it doesn't matter that I willingly attended...I'm now being forced against my will to stay. If I invite my date to my bed, start having sex...want to stop...he won't stop...I push and shove and scream stop...and he continues...that's rape. Doesn't matter if I consented in the beginning...I'm withdrawing consent and want him to stop. If I have a party..invite people in....and then ask them to leave and they don't...it doesn't matter that I gave consent in the beginning...I'm withdrawing consent, it's time to go.
So I don't buy that because a woman ok's the act that produces the fetus she is bound to carry it for 9 months. I guess, abortion is withdrawing consent,imo. And that goes along with controlling your body, your biology and protecting your autonomy...which I give a higher value to than any perceived rights of a fetus.

reply from: Skippy

...a made-up word. It is hilarious when the dictionary-dependent make words up.

reply from: galen

*****************************************
Equating not allowing an abortion and rape is rather odd... especially when a woman willingly participated in sex, knowing full well what could happen if her BC fails. It produces a child who is there through no fault of its own.
Rape on the other hand is a cruel and violent act carried out for no other reason but controll of the victim... its a hate crime in the worst fashion....
It is more truthful to equate the act of abortion with the act of rape, because both are forcing an innocent party to be tortured and in some cases killed to benefit the twisted psyche of the attacker.

reply from: 4choice4all

Only if you believe the fetus deserves the same rights and recognition as born people...and I don't.

reply from: sk1bianca

we protect certain animal species by forbidding people to kill them.
but if we want to protect unborn kids, we shouldn't try to make abortion illegal?
that's a bit inconstant, don't you think?
again, animals are valued more than unborn human children. our own children... what kind of sick self destructing species are we?

reply from: 4choice4all

The human race isn't on the verge of becoming extinct.

reply from: TraderTif

If you did......then would abortion be wrong?

reply from: 4choice4all

Certainly...if I felt a fetus was no different than my children....I would be prolife...without hesitation.

reply from: Yuuki

Proabort is short for proabortion. You are for abortion so you are a proabort. I don't see how you would feel that is insulting and you are for abortion. When did I ever call you "buttnugget or deathscanc?
Respect for our fellow human beings starts with accepting the label the have chosen to call themselves. In regards to the belief that abortion is a choice (and I hope you are not insane enough to think women do not choose abortion) then we pro-lifers are anti-choice. However true this statement may be (since we are against the choice of abortion, which is what the entire debate is about) it is still an insult and is not respectful to use.
If you cannot respect your opponent then you are no better than they, and you will never win the debate.

reply from: prochoiceinNY

Frnkly it doesn't mater if the POC feel anythng, which thdy dn't anyway, if its in the women's body she has the right and only her to dicide if if stays ther.

reply from: sk1bianca

that's discrimination based on location.

reply from: sander

...a made-up word. It is hilarious when the dictionary-dependent make words up.
What's hilarious is when you can't dissect a word, here let me help...
Pro (for) abort (short for abortion).
There's your lesson for the day. Pay attention for once, there will be a test.

reply from: sander

It's also cold blooded murder.
Proaborts seem to have sociopathic personalities and have found an outlet that happens to be legal at the moment.

reply from: 4choice4all

You say developing personality as if that trait were no more important than hair color. It absolutely comes down to when, in the point of human development, I believe a fetus becomes a person. I've been very clear that it is at birth. I've stated why birth is significant to me. I've conceded that the line is a bit blurred by viability when a woman could choose to birth over abort. You say this as if it is revelation...but it's what I've been saying since I came here.
As far as killing the unborn being more grievous than killing someone older, since it didn't have a chance to live life...I would add that when we kill someone we deprive others of the relationship they created with that existing person and the emotional investment they've made in that person. So if a woman aborts a fetus that no one other than she knew existed...it doesn't carry the ripple effect as if she were to die and deprive her parents, siblings, friends, spouse, children, community, etc. of the relationship they had established with that person. So I disagree with you on that point.
I have explained why "birth" is crucial...at length and directly to you. I've never said...birth, just because....I've ALWAYS elaborated. You've never responded directly to any of those points even though you asked under the guise of wanting more dialogue. I would love to discuss it in depth...so take your pick...which point would you like to jump off of in regards to personhood and when human matter becomes a human being? Theologically? Biologically? Scientifically/medically? legally? Or what I really think you are aiming at is Philosophically...so which one? We can pick my argument apart piece by piece...either on the board on in pms....your call. I'm willing to actively engage until we both throw our hands up and say we will never see eye to eye or otherwise.
I think there are worse things than losing an argument or point of debate and that is not climbing into every corner of your mind in search of truth.

reply from: 4choice4all

Agreed...our personality and what I believe makes us "human beings" is not present at birth...because we know cognition and sentience is not developed at birth. But at birth we do have a biologically independent being and a legally recognized being with the ability to develop sentience and cognition(personality). So at birth it's personhood status is bestowed by the act of being born, being physically independent, being biologically changed(heart/respiration) and being legally recognized...the added bonus of personality develops later. Likewise.....if the personality aspect (cognition/sentience) is not capable of being developed(anencephaly, serious brain trauma) I have no problem with parents allowing the child to die and not keeping them alive with tubes/machines...since I do believe "personality" is a crucial part of our personhood..but one that develops later.
First...I'm allowed to have some gray matter,lol. Ok...I do recognize that once a fetus is valid the only thing preventing it from achieving personhood is the act of being born. At this point I concede that I can understand why the state might believe it has a vested interest in the fetus. I could understand the state declaring that as long as the woman's health and life wasn't at risk(because at this point I do not believe it has equal rights as the woman) and as long as the fetus does not have medical problems that are incompatible with life...she should give birth instead of having a fully elective abortion of a healthy viable. I can understand the states argument...from a legal standpoint. I just have a bit of a personal hang up about the state being involved in a woman's autonomy and biology.
I'm not attempting to distract...this is dialogue and dialogue doesn't mean agreement. Stop insulting me and claiming I have nefarious intentions if you want to continue to dialogue and not have me assume you are a well disgused Sander type....please refrain from insulting me.
I didn't say "experience" I said relationship. I disagree that if I died it wouldn't rob my children of a continued relationship...they would have our past experiences, sure...but not be able to continue developing a relationship with a parent. I know for me....the real tangible relationships I have are more important to me than potential relationships. Example...I will never have more children because of my health. That decision was not terribly hard to make. Staying healthy and alive so I can continue to build relationships with the people I love is more important to me than having another child and risking what I have for a potential relationship.
I do not duck to reality...again, please refrain from insults if you wish to actually engage. It demeans you...it demeans your arguments and it makes me less inclined to waste real time talking to you if you insist on insulting me. I can get that from others here with a lot less effort. I don't "duck back to legality"...I believe that abortion can be discussed in many contexts and they are all important parts of the debate. I don't see abortion as a black and white issue....I see grey. And where I see grey, you see indecision. I disagree with that point.

reply from: Hosea

So if someone is killed that no one loves, it shouldn't be considered Murder?

reply from: Hosea

But if someone won't leave your house you can't kill them you have to WAIT untill the police take them away. People should not be able to kill babys they can WAIT until they are viable and birth them.

reply from: Shenanigans

Do you acknowledge that personality develops over time and that it will continue to develop over life, an actually doesn't really stop developing?
Does that mean you would support the destruction of born human life based on them not having developed a full personality or at the least a functioning personality?
What of those with personality disorders, does that make a person with such a disorder less human?
Can you define biological indepedenance.
What if legal reocognition was given pre-birth? To an older foetus, say 30 weeks?
The human uterine entity has the ability to develop these same things.
"Personhood status" is simply a word, words have meanings that can be altered by a society or the law that governs it.
Do you mean physical independence in a purely locational situation or rather a biological? Biologicaly the heart and lungs of the foetus are working in utero, the foetus breathes in fluid and while oxygen, nurtion and wastes passes through the umblical cord to the mother, if the foetus was born at (just recently even 23 weeks) the foetus will likely survive.
Again, why is legal recognition so important for you to be bestowed at birth?
Would you support the death or "not keeping them alive" if a child had Downs Syndrome or some other form of defect which prevented the development of a full personality? Since you seem to be saying that a functioning personality is part in parcel of personhood? What of dementia and Alzheimers? A person with these illnesses can start to loose their established personality? What of those with a brain injury? I've met people who have essentially been labotomised by an injury and as such have no "personality" rather they're more like on "auto pilot".
If personality is part of personhood but is not yet developed at birth, isn't it a bit unfair of you to deny personhood to the foetus because it is capable of developing personality?
and
Here's the issue with your argument.
If personhood is determined at birth, and you only give value and the right to not be killed is bestowed at birth, then by saying you think their should be legal allowance for the foetus at the stage of post viability.
If personhood is all that gives the right to [continue] life, then you must not have personal hang ups over post viabilty foeti, as they are not legally recognised and therefore, no woman should be prevented from seeking its destruction.
Your personal issues simply determine that abortion is about seeking the death of the human uterine entity, not about its removal from the mother. And even so, the death is not legally immoral given that its not a human person to begin with, as human personhood does not exist until birth.
So really, its rather hypocritical to say personhood only at birth when talking of an 9 week foetus and its a-okay to remove said 9 weeker even if death occurs, but then turn and say well, abortion of a post viable foetus is questionable because of the post viable foetus' abilty to be born and develop personality - but the 9 weeker has the same ability. Sure, there's the risk of miscarriage, but there's still a risk of in uteruo foetal demise at the later stages, such as a cord wrappign around a 38 weeker's neck. The foetus at 38 weeks will survive if born. But it's still at risk of demise from non-health related issues.
Essentially, if its the woman's body at 8 weeks with a non-person "human" but not being, then its a woman's body at 38 weeks with a non-person "human" but not being.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

reply from: Shenanigans

The same could be said of a stillborn child or a baby who dies of SIDS.

reply from: Shenanigans

Why not? If you simply assert that the cake is "gray," all the contradictions magically disappear....
I dunno.
Cos you could get diabetes?
But it just seems odd that she says she has "issues" with late term abortion but yet turns and says personhood doesn't happen till birth and thus abortion is justified. Yet, she then reckons thats LTA are a fickled issue and the not being human foetus shouldn't be killed.
Its kinda trying to have it both ways.

reply from: Shenanigans

I wouldn't put it passed some people...

reply from: 4choice4all

In response to that thread...even if it were a "person"..when it's not viable a woman shouldn't be forced to gestate..she gets to evict it from her womb.
OK, so am I to understand that whether the unborn are "persons" or "human beings" has nothing to do with your position now? Didn't you tell me that the unborn are not human beings, and that was why they could be arbitrarily killed at the mother's whim? And now you are telling me that a newborn is not a human being either?
I have some more comments, but I think I need some clarification on these points first...
I think you are trying to be obtuse. Of course personality is not the end all....but when we talk from a philosophical viewpoint(which is what I thought we were discussing) personality is the main concern philosophically.

reply from: 4choice4all

Do you acknowledge that personality develops over time and that it will continue to develop over life, an actually doesn't really stop developing?
yes..I agree...but you are taking this out of context. We were discussing the philosophical points on abortion. I was saying that the development of personality..and cognition and sentience are the important components to the philosophical argument.
Does that mean you would support the destruction of born human life based on them not having developed a full personality or at the least a functioning personality?
Absolutely not...because my philosophical beliefs on what constitutes a person is merely part of the picture. One issue alone can not trump all the other points.
What of those with personality disorders, does that make a person with such a disorder less human?
A personality disorder does not make anyone less human.
Can you define biological indepedenance.
When your body does not require a host. At birth any responsible party can care for any infant...it does not require a biological connection to sustain itself.
What if legal reocognition was given pre-birth? To an older foetus, say 30 weeks?
If legal recognition were given earlier...than I couldn't argue that point from a legal perspective.
The human uterine entity has the ability to develop these same things.
But it's in combination with other important factors like biological independence and so on.
"Personhood status" is simply a word, words have meanings that can be altered by a society or the law that governs it.
Exactly...and right now it's recognized as a born person...and I believe it will remain that way...because the legal determination relies on other bodies of thought...like theology, biology, philosophy and so forth.
Do you mean physical independence in a purely locational situation or rather a biological? Biologicaly the heart and lungs of the foetus are working in utero, the foetus breathes in fluid and while oxygen, nurtion and wastes passes through the umblical cord to the mother, if the foetus was born at (just recently even 23 weeks) the foetus will likely survive.
Although the heart and lungs function in utero..they function differently. There are biological changes that occur when a person takes their first breath outside of the womb. I've presented links in previous debates....go google it if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Again, why is legal recognition so important for you to be bestowed at birth?
It's not important to me....the legal aspect. What was important to me was the discernment process.
Would you support the death or "not keeping them alive" if a child had Downs Syndrome or some other form of defect which prevented the development of a full personality? Since you seem to be saying that a functioning personality is part in parcel of personhood? What of dementia and Alzheimers? A person with these illnesses can start to loose their established personality? What of those with a brain injury? I've met people who have essentially been labotomised by an injury and as such have no "personality" rather they're more like on "auto pilot".
I don't believe Down's Syndrome prevents personality development...at all. Have you had many interactions with people living with DS? I have. I volunteer with the Special Olympics and pre-kids I was a volunteer with ARC(assoc.retarded citizens) and worked at a summer camp with many people living with DS. I dare say they have more developed personalities that most typically functioning people I've dealt with. I think we are unclear on personality. I think you are viewing it as sense of humor and wit...and I'm thinking of it in terms of all the characteristics and the full range of emotion, expression, cognition and sentience. In the quote I'm talking about lacking brain matter..functioning off of brain stem with only reflexes.
If personality is part of personhood but is not yet developed at birth, isn't it a bit unfair of you to deny personhood to the foetus because it is capable of developing personality?
You've asked this.....no...personality is a part of the philosophical discussion which is only a part of the entire issue of personhood.
and
Here's the issue with your argument.
If personhood is determined at birth, and you only give value and the right to not be killed is bestowed at birth, then by saying you think their should be legal allowance for the foetus at the stage of post viability.
No...I'm not talking about what the LAW should recognize...I'm merely stating where my beliefs become more gray. I am not so vain to think that my personal hang ups are sound legal principle.
If personhood is all that gives the right to [continue] life, then you must not have personal hang ups over post viabilty foeti, as they are not legally recognised and therefore, no woman should be prevented from seeking its destruction.
Same as above
Your personal issues simply determine that abortion is about seeking the death of the human uterine entity, not about its removal from the mother. And even so, the death is not legally immoral given that its not a human person to begin with, as human personhood does not exist until birth.
So really, its rather hypocritical to say personhood only at birth when talking of an 9 week foetus and its a-okay to remove said 9 weeker even if death occurs, but then turn and say well, abortion of a post viable foetus is questionable because of the post viable foetus' abilty to be born and develop personality - but the 9 weeker has the same ability. Sure, there's the risk of miscarriage, but there's still a risk of in uteruo foetal demise at the later stages, such as a cord wrappign around a 38 weeker's neck. The foetus at 38 weeks will survive if born. But it's still at risk of demise from non-health related issues.
Essentially, if its the woman's body at 8 weeks with a non-person "human" but not being, then its a woman's body at 38 weeks with a non-person "human" but not being.
Yes..I agree a fetus at 38 weeks does not have personhood status....the only reason it's gray for me is because the only thing preventing it is the act of delivery. You could induce and give birth...that's not possible at 8 weeks and I don't think that something with no rights should trump a woman's right to autonomy. She shouldn't be forced to gestate. At 38 weeks or 27 weeks...she shouldn't be forced to gestate any longer...induce and deliver, if the state deems it has a vested interest. No forced gestation...period..no matter the stage of development. Again...my personal issue...and not one that I think is necessarily sound legal ground.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Wait...who said I can't have an opinion? And who said I can't see grey? Oh yes...I can.

reply from: 4choice4all

I never implied that...I was explicitly responding to a point that CP made. Did you read it in context? Do you care to discuss whether you agree with CP or not and why?

reply from: Hosea

I have CP blocked so I didn't read his comments.

reply from: 4choice4all

Gotcha!
So....care to share why you blocked CP?

reply from: AshMarie88

A person is a person, no matter how small. My brother was aborted in the first trimester; that did not make him any less of a person.
Besides, the last thing this world needs is hate. There's so much war, murder, rape, terrorism, hate, yada yada yada... Why add more hate to the mix? You claim "a woman's right to choose" well, EVERYTHING is a choice... but, there are BAD choices too!!

reply from: prochoiceinNY

It was your moms choice to abort. just becaues you feel sad about it, doesn't men it was a person. and how do you knw it ws a boy?

reply from: AshMarie88

It was your moms choice to abort. just becaues you feel sad about it, doesn't men it was a person. and how do you knw it ws a boy?
1. It wasn't her "choice", she never got a choice, she was coerced by my dad, she was scared and didn't think she had anyone to go to for help. So no, it wasn't her "choice"...
2. He was a person, and he watches over me from above.
3. I know it was a boy and my mom knows it was a boy. Even before I knew she had been pregnant before and aborted, I always knew I had a brother... I always felt I had one, and I'm psychic in the way that I have ESP, I've been interested in the paranormal and had experiences from the time I was a little girl. Always had this "gut instinct" this "feeling" it was my older brother, and mom even admitted to me she felt the same thing afterwards... Before I ever knew about it.
Not that I should have to explain all this to you, you don't care, and probably never will. But for future reference, don't ASSume stuff that doesn't involve you. You're heartless.

reply from: AshMarie88

FYI, if my brother was alive right now, he would be 28, turning 29, probably with a wife and children of his own. If you ever felt the way I did, you would know how deep the truth and feelings are. It's so real, it's a nightmare, you will never understand it. Just keep listening to your lies you're being fed by feminazis.

reply from: AshMarie88

ALSO One more thing... My mom, the second time she got pregnant (with me) she got the strength to say NO to having another abortion. To think that she nearly did abort me, is horrifying to think about. Sure, if she did, I would not be here right now - But that's why it's horrible. If I wasn't here, I wouldn't be happy with a fiance, happy about life, happy to go to college and get a career, happy that my 21st birthday is coming up in 6 months... My life could have been easily terminated and the "doctor" would have gotten away with it, with nothing against him.
I'm so glad I'm alive, and in some weird ways, I feel I wasn't aborted because my brother was protecting me.

reply from: Rosalie

Since I'm pro-choice, I can only tell you why abortion does NOT bother me. I believe that the right to make private, medical decisions does not go away with pregnancy. It doesn't disappear, it doesn't change.
Otherwise it is discrimination.
I do not believe that any human organism has the right to live inside of another human against their will, even if removing it means the dependent organism's demise. The rights of the 'hosting' organism are always ultimate and the 'rights' of the dependent organism can never interfere with the hosting organism's rights. They are not equal just because they are human. They can never be equal as long as one of them is the hosting organism and the other one is the dependent organism.

reply from: Rosalie

After reading this thread, I have to wonder why pro-lifers lie about pro-chociers - about who we are, what we feel, why we believe what we believe, how we feel about men, how we feel after having an abortion, how our boyfriends/husbands feel about our pregnancies and stances on abortion... it sounds like a desperate ploy to insult people whose actions you disagree with. That's just sad. And again, all these lies tell more about those who tell them than about those they're attempting to lie about.
I will gladly be labeled selfish by these people. Because to them, selfish means being concerned about my own health and life and the well-being of my family and my born children. If this is selfish, then I am very proud to be so selfish.
This statement contradicts your previous statements about you having education in this field.
Your wishful thinking and personal feelings do not equal facts, you know.
Are you not ashamed yourself of lying so blatantly? I would be if I were you. You probably think that some women might be stupid enough to believe you, right?
Fetuses, as well as newborns, respond to stimuli, they are guided by their reflexes that over time begin to vanish as they begin learning and their responses become more than just reflexes.
You must be really desperate and/or uneducated to lie like this.

reply from: Rosalie

That's not how it works. None of what you are experiencing now would have happened in the first place and therefore you wouldn't be missing out on anything.
If someone was to 'abort' you now, then yes, you would lose all that you have just named. As an embryo/fetus, you wouldn't lose anything. You would lose potential future you'd know nothing about in advance.
If someone who has had a place in your life dies, you miss everything that was and the possibility of everything that could've been. If someone is not born in the first place, the only think you can miss is the possibility of what could've been and that is nowhere near comparable to losing someone with whom you had a bond based not only on biological relationship but also the time spent together, all your experience, good times and bad times - all that creates true bonds.
By using terms like "feminazi" you couldn't make it any clearer that you are 1) everything but intelligent, 2) brainwashed with propaganda.
Grow up and start thinking for yourself.

reply from: Rosalie

Of course not, because woman is much more than a mere LOCATION. The fetus is INSIDE OF HER, inside of her body, influencing her health and life every single moment in every single way - and that's way more than just a 'locatoin'. This is exactly the sort of misogyny that you 'pro-lifers' are blind to but that speaks volumes to all the decent people out here.

reply from: Rosalie

Yes, she can't mother a dead child; a child she is responsible for killing.
Oh goodie, so now we can judge you and your parenting choices and what kind of a mother you are, since you feel righteous enough to judge others based on your warped, immoral beliefs.
So I suppose you and your choices with regards to parenting are now a fair game, too. No double standards.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, she can't mother a dead child; a child she is responsible for killing.
Oh goodie, so now we can judge you and your parenting choices and what kind of a mother you are, since you feel righteous enough to judge others based on your warped, immoral beliefs.
So I suppose you and your choices with regards to parenting are now a fair game, too. No double standards.
"Parenting choices" don't include killing your child, born or unborn. My parenting has always been treated as "fair game" by some of the proaborts here. Ask Spinny, she thinks she's an expert.

reply from: galen

I will gladly be labeled selfish by these people. Because to them, selfish means being concerned about my own health and life and the well-being of my family and my born children. If this is selfish, then I am very proud to be so selfish.
This statement contradicts your previous statements about you having education in this field.
Your wishful thinking and personal feelings do not equal facts, you know.
Are you not ashamed yourself of lying so blatantly? I would be if I were you. You probably think that some women might be stupid enough to believe you, right?
Fetuses, as well as newborns, respond to stimuli, they are guided by their reflexes that over time begin to vanish as they begin learning and their responses become more than just reflexes.
You must be really desperate and/or uneducated to lie like this.
***************************************
oh really? proove i am wrong.

reply from: Skippy

...a made-up word. It is hilarious when the dictionary-dependent make words up.
What's hilarious is when you can't dissect a word, here let me help...
Pro (for) abort (short for abortion).
There's your lesson for the day. Pay attention for once, there will be a test.
Hey, it's cool. You can make up all the words you want. And then you can enjoy the giggles when someone calls you on it. Fictional words make all that "But the dictionary says..." blustering even more laugh-worthy.

reply from: lukesmom

...a made-up word. It is hilarious when the dictionary-dependent make words up.
What's hilarious is when you can't dissect a word, here let me help...
Pro (for) abort (short for abortion).
There's your lesson for the day. Pay attention for once, there will be a test.
Hey, it's cool. You can make up all the words you want. And then you can enjoy the giggles when someone calls you on it. Fictional words make all that "But the dictionary says..." blustering even more laugh-worthy.
If you think pro and abortion are made up words, you obviously failed the test. Are you making up the class in summer school?

reply from: sander

...a made-up word. It is hilarious when the dictionary-dependent make words up.
What's hilarious is when you can't dissect a word, here let me help...
Pro (for) abort (short for abortion).
There's your lesson for the day. Pay attention for once, there will be a test.
Hey, it's cool. You can make up all the words you want. And then you can enjoy the giggles when someone calls you on it. Fictional words make all that "But the dictionary says..." blustering even more laugh-worthy.
That was a short honeymoon.......
I didn't make up the word pro or abortion.....you have heard of those words, right?
Now, don't go trying to do that word dance that 4c does so poorly, I thought at least you had the brains to reconize a real word when you saw it and could understand the definition.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics