Unborn Children Feel Pain Too
Posted by Moonage on 04 Dec 2006 | Tagged as: Legislative Process
Fla. GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen posted this on The Hill Blog:
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.
This much-needed legislation would require that women considering an abortion be informed of the pain their unborn child would feel during the procedure, and then offer those women still considering the procedure the option of giving the unborn child anesthesia.
Medical evidence suggests an unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks, if not earlier.
As such, it is our responsibility as legislators to see women throughout America are informed of the intense pain experienced by their unborn child during an abortion and offer them an option to ease their child€™s pain.
So far, 94 Congressmen and women have signed on to this legislation.
I think it’s crap. The main reason I feel this way is because in the rush to abolish abortion, everyone tends to ignore the ramifications of doing so. The solution to this legislation’s problem is to simply anesthetize the fetus. The result of this legislation is to discourage those that have already considered the consequences of having a baby and decided it wasn’t the right thing to do. When a person makes that decision, they often have a compelling reason. Those reasons often include crack addicted babies, alcohol fetal syndromes, and other situations which render a healthy baby not likely. Although the "pain" felt by a fetus is fleeting at best, the pain and suffering caused by a lifetime lived with the handicaps caused by irresponsible conception are much more inhumane IMO. I used to work with people who suffered from these syndromes, it’s ugly, people, really ugly. I have seen four potential adoptions fail due to mothers-to-be addicted to drugs. God did what man tried to prevent, he aborted them all. Man now has the technology to save almost any fetus no matter the shape it’s in or the life it will become. What we don’t have is the wisdom of when it’s best to use it or not. Some lives are just not worth saving. Sounds cold, sounds crass, but it’s a fact. Spend six months volunteering for your local mental health/mental retardation board with the profoundly retarded and see how it affects you. Most of those people were born before we had a clue how fubar their lives would be. We now have the ability to know before it’s too late. What we don’t have is the emotional maturity it takes to use that technology and prevent a life of nothing but confusion and pain. Sure, some people will abort for less worthy reasons. But, forcing those that know they are conceiving a being that has no chance to survive and enjoy life is even worse to me.
It’s popular now to bash abortion. But, no one wants to accept the responsibility of the consequences. Until there is a viable means to support all the abandoned, physically and mentally handicapped children this type of legislation will compel on ALL of society, I oppose all anti-abortion legislation.
UPDATE December 7, 2006: HR 6099 failed the House 250-162 ( it needed 2/3 to pass ). Here’s the Party breakdown:
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Republican | 210 | 9 | 10 | |
| Democratic | 40 | 152 | 10 | |
| Independent | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 250 | 162 | 20 |
Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised.
9 Comments »
on 05 Dec 2006 at 11:04 pm 1.American Phoenix
said …
I’d rather not encourage people to abuse their bodies with drugs and alcohol, thereby creating more physically and mentally handicapped babies. Finding a way to support these poor children, is “responsible” only at the second level because a problem has already been created. It’s irresponsible at the first level. Because no one wants to be ultimately responsible, this encourages more crack, more alcohol abuse, more handicapped babies, and more aborted and dead babies. This encourages more drug/alcohol addiction because the twisted products of careless sex can be tossed out like so much trash.
These babies, sick though they are, are still human beings. They should have the same rights any other human being has - one of which is the right not to be murdered and have their life ended by any other human hand. Fail to give these sick little ones rights, and you will lose your own rights at the other end of the spectrum (euthanasia). It’s already happening.
What an irony that someone who would argue that the Crusades, etc. were horrible because people were killed, now argues that abortion is good because it kills people. You’re arguing that some people are worth more than others.
You know I’ve already put my money where my mouth is. My husband and I put our profiles up to adopt 5 babies that were drug/alcohol exposed. I’ll agree with you that birth defects are horrible things. I won’t agree with you that murder is the solution.
on 05 Dec 2006 at 11:31 pm 2.Moonage
said …
Where this debate will never be resolved is the definition of when life begins. Some argue it’s practically the second life is conceived, others argue it’s when the brain actually is capable of thinking, otherwise known as having a soul. Just because something reacts to stimuli does not prove it’s capable of thought. Because of my life experiences, I know that sometimes developing to the level of being able to experience joy, pain, pride, disappointment, and all the things that make someone a person never happens. Therefore, stopping the process before it ever begins is not murder. The Crusades and religions wars involve killing people who have developed some level of thought and do understand what’s happening to them. There’s no comparing the two.
I have put my money where my mouth is. I’ve adopted four dead babies. One born without a brain. I have worked with profoundly retarded people who often eat their own body parts and excrement for snacks. There are now so many in our local institution they are trying to figure some way to move the lesser profoundly retarded into homes so they can free up more room for the even more profoundly retarded who will never be placed in a caring environment because they are too much of a danger to themselves and others. When summarily damning all abortion, people ignore the fact that some births, by God’s natural process, were never meant to be. It is only with the advent of medical procedures that some of these births ever occur in the first place. And, I think a lot of that is because of the stigma attached to aborting to being called a murderer.
We’ll just have to disagree on this one. I support all kinds of children’s programs here so I don’t consider myself some cold-hearted murderer. However, having experienced the ramifications of drug addicted women first hand more than once, I know that not only should abortions be able to be discussed in a logical fashion when it’s obvious things are not going well, but in some cases it should not only be encouraged, but legally enforced. We punish women for having crack addicted brain-damaged babies that will never have a chance of knowing what it is to be human, but by then it’s too late.
on 07 Dec 2006 at 4:29 pm 3.American Phoenix
said …
Science has already resolved this debate. Human life exists where you have 23 paired chromosomes. What the U.S. Supreme Court has done is to say that some human beings get the benefit of the law’s prohibition against murder and some do not.
The argument was never whether this was human life. The argument was always about quality of life and then equating a certain quality of life with humanity, and therefore that the lack of quality of life was some kind of justification for murder. Once you start arguing quality, there’s no end to it. What some person views as poor quality, other people would be fine with. As evidence, some people are aborting babies with cleft palate - one of the most treatable birth defects.
Isn’t it ironic that Christianity’s definition of a human being starts from biology, while at the same time, Christianity is accused of being anti-science while our culture ignores basic biology. So who is anti-science?
Abortion does not stop the process before it ever begins. That is patently false. If the process had never begun, there would be nothing to abort. The process of human life was already set in motion by a male and a female. Abortion stops a beating heart. It causes a human life to come to an end. There’s just no getting around that.
That some babies are deformed isn’t something that happens out of “God’s natural process”. In the cases you’re talking about, this has happened because mothers didn’t take enough folic acid to prevent neural tube defects, or because they used drugs and alcohol to excess with teratogenic effects. (There I go, touting science again…) Do you believe that drug abuse is God’s plan for us? I sure don’t. What a horrific, despairing vision of God that would be!
The solution isn’t murder, which doesn’t solve the root of the problem - drug/alcohol abuse and poor prenatal care. Not solving that problem will only produce more dead and deformed babies - something I would like to prevent - because it would only encourage people to discard like so much trash the products of their own bad behavior. Ignoring the real problem won’t solve the problem. Our culture has been trying to ignore this problem for over 30 years now and it hasn’t gotten any better. It’s just gotten worse. If abortion was going to solve this problem, it would have solved it already because we’ve killed around 40 million babies in this country. Your adoption experience just proves that it hasn’t been solved. My adoption experience, although more successful than even we expected under the circumstances of our present drug culture, proves it too. Of all of the babies we put ourselves into the hat for, all of them but one had been exposed to drugs, alcohol AND nicotine.
Moon, I don’t consider you cold-hearted. I think you’re a really warm hearted guy. But you’re still advocating murder. It’s not pretty, but that’s what it is and euphemisms aren’t really going to change it. And even worse, once you institutionalize murder for one reason, it can be institutionalized for others. Which is exactly what is currently happening.
on 07 Dec 2006 at 5:22 pm 4.Moonage
said …
You’re putting the cart before the horse. Aborting brain-damaged or otherwise horrifically deformed babies has no impact whatsoever on people who choose to abuse drugs while pregnant. Educating about the consequences hasn’t stopped drug abuse either. Therefore, the only option left would be to kill the mothers-to-be before they got pregnent. That, although some would argue is justifiable, is murder in the purest since of the word. Aborting a fetus, regardless of the ethical perceptions, is not under the law. In a perfect society, there would be no need for abortions of any sort. No one would be abusing drugs, genetics would be perfected so deformaties didn’t exist. All men would be caring enough to support their children. But the reality is that is not the case in a lot of situations. If told that my son was going to be deformed profoundly and may not live beyond a few years, and that quality of life would be pain and suffering for the entire duration, I would abort. I wish the other mothers-to-be in my life had made the same decision and saved a lot of people, me included, a lot of grief. The babies were pretty much dead before they were born. They had the chromosomes, so science says they were human. What they did not have was a functioning brain. So, just because the chromosomes are there means there is no justification to ever abort? I don’t believe that, and neither would any thinking doctor. Quality of life is a serious issue. If they can’t ever experience the emotions that make us human, what’s the point? In a purely religions overtone, if the choice is either a life of misery and pain versus being in God’s arms in heaven, which is the more humane situation for them to be in? You’re making the assumption that all births lead to a potentially happy life. I know from way too many experienes that is not the case. There are too many situations when a baby, or the mother, has no real chance of living or living a life with any chance of enjoying it. I can’t wish that on anyone. I certainly won’t force it on anyone.
on 10 Dec 2006 at 11:16 am 5.American Phoenix
said …
I’m not making the assumption that all births lead to a happy life. All births do lead to life, unless they are still born. I am assuming that human life has value simply in the fact that it is human. I am also assuming that the taking of an innocent human life is murder.
It’s true that aborting deformed babies will have no impact on drug-abusing mothers. That’s why this “solution” isn’t. Babies born with anencephaly, spina bifida or other neural tube defects happen because of poor prenatal care (lack of folic acid) or alcohol/drug abuse (which in turn decreases the folic acid available for the baby). Solve the drug/alcohol problem with the mom’s and you solve the real problem.
Babies with anencephaly don’t have a completely functioning brain, this is true. But there are two things you need to think about: 1) those babies tend to die within a few days if they are born alive in the first place which is fairly rare, and 2) often their organs can be donated thus keeping some other baby in need alive. Even out of tragedy, some good can be pulled. If you abort that baby, there’s no chance for any other sick baby to get those organs.
on 10 Dec 2006 at 12:17 pm 6.Moonage
said …
Well, forcing babies to die a natural death after a few months or days versus ending it suddenly and quickly is exactly what I am arguing against. I see no point in it. The problem with these types of legislation and the anti-abortion push in general to me is it is inhumane to compel the mother to carry a baby for nine months knowing full well it will end in death or severe mental handicap for the baby. Some people do choose to go against the advice of their doctors and try anyway. Those people can donate those organs.
on 10 Dec 2006 at 10:09 pm 7.American Phoenix
said …
Moon, this is one of the most disingenuous arguments I’ve ever seen you make.
1) A mother doesn’t carry the baby for 9 months knowing there’s a problem. The kind of problem you’re concerned with - anencephaly - is a neural tube defect that occurs in the first three months of pregnancy. The mother finds out well after the defect has happened, perhaps 4-5 months into the pregnancy on average when someone finally does an ultrasound.
2) The mothers often are cause of this birth defect. They didn’t take enough folic acid or they abused drugs/alcohol (which lowers the mother’s folic acid level). Want to prevent deformed babies? Don’t abuse alcohol/drugs and take enough folic acid when you’re pregnant. This isn’t rocket science and any M.D. will tell you that. The birth defects are among the most preventable!!! The majority of people get enough folic acid from their diet. That people in your neck of the woods don’t tells me that a) they aren’t eating right, b) they are abusing drugs/alcohol, c) they have poor prenatal care. Fix this and you fix the source of the problem and people won’t have to worry about this birth defect.
It’s the mothers that are responsible for these deformities. Not God. Not the baby - and yet our society wants to punish the baby with death. It’s the mothers who are responsible and it is the mothers who are killing these babies while they’re still in utero. The solution to the problem is to fix these defective mothers - keep them from abusing drugs/alcohol and ensure they get enough prenatal care. Of course, I don’t propose killing the mothers, although that would be the solution if we were following your line of reasoning to it’s ultimate conclusion.
on 10 Dec 2006 at 10:37 pm 8.Moonage
said …
It’s not disingenious if there is no other option. That’s the problem I have. If abortion is completely outlawed, what other option is there?
Not every case where a baby is horribly malformed is due to drugs. A friend of ours has a baby with profound problems. Most likely the child is profoundly retarded, can not walk, and has to be fed introveneously. They are deeply religious so I am quite certain drugs were not an issue. Given the option of aborting, I know they’d never choose it. They chose the route they, and their child, are pursuing. Some people will not care for a child that messed up. We have a huge institution here for those children, who are now adults. It’s simple to say we need to get the mothers-to-be to quit doing drugs and/or take more folic acid, but that’s not worked in the history of man. And, given individual freedoms and choices, it never will. So, what to do?
on 12 Dec 2006 at 8:03 pm 9.American Phoenix
said …
There are other options. 1) Don’t abuse drugs/alcohol, 2) Make sure you have good prenatal care, eat right and take lots of folic acid, and 3) Have your baby(ies) when you’re still young (the odds of birth defects go up with the age of the mother). A little self-control goes a long way and will solve most of the problems you’re talking about. It’s not true that self-control has never worked in the history of man. A little self-control has proven to be vastly more effective than any remedy for the lack of it. People who can’t control their own conduct are people who wind up being prisoners of their own bad behavior. That bad behavior always produces an effect, and that effect is usually costly. Abortions don’t happen for free. Somebody has to pay for them. They don’t happen without emotional or physical cost either. Someone always pays.
The vast majority of abortions in this country are not happening because of birth defects. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is connected with Planned Parenthood, over 90% of abortions happen because the existence of the baby inconveniences the mother in some way. The birth defect justification for abortion is only a red herring. Inconvenience is just not a good reason to end a human life. We usually reserve the death penalty for those convicted of only the most heinous crimes, although unborn babies have been convicted of no crime other than the mere fact of their existence.
Even babies with birth defects are valuable human beings. They deserve our love no less than anyone else. To say that they deserve to be aborted because they have profound problems is to take a gigantic step backwards because it says that human beings only have value for what they can do - or more accurately what other people think they can do. It’s a very utilitarian view of humanity that ultimately devalues humanity. Such a view undervalues human accomplishment in the face of adversity - even profound physical adversity.
The idea that people are only valuable for what they can do is not new. It is, in fact, a very ancient, old and pre-Christian idea. It also happens to be one of the reasons why Christianity, with its radical and revolutionary ideas about the unqualified value of human life, was felt to be such a breath of fresh air in a culture that was so full of despair.