Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act

[tonyg]

Does a child feel excruciating pain during the abortion? Not according to the 250 spineless Representatives who voted on a bill stating so yesterday.
I’m sure if anyone of these people stubbed their toe they would be moaning with pain. How could any reasonable person come to the conclusion that these innocent babies are not being tortured during the abortion process.
The point is if they feel pain then they are babies and human beings created in the image of Almighty God.

 

[milimac]

See how your representative voted: clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll526.xml

From LifeSiteNews.com:
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life commented saying, “It is no small thing that 60 percent of the House endorsed requiring abortionists to inform women that late abortion may be very painful to the unborn child. The other 40 percent will have to explain why they favor anti-pain laws for animals used for research or food, but not for unborn humans.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

See how your representative voted: clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll526.xml

From LifeSiteNews.com:
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life commented saying, “It is no small thing that 60 percent of the House endorsed requiring abortionists to inform women that late abortion may be very painful to the unborn child. The other 40 percent will have to explain why they favor anti-pain laws for animals used for research or food, but not for unborn humans.”

Large scale murder cannot be committed without de-humanizing the victims. That’s why the Nazis classed the Jews as Untermenschen (subhumans) and why the pro-abortionists are so hung up on calling a baby a “fetus.”

Now they’ve just taken it a step farther, and de-animalized the unborn. A human in the womb is less to them than a chicken.

 

[Rosalinda]

Fr. Frank Pavone’s comment yesterday:
[sign]"Current law requires that measures be taken to eliminate or minimize pain in animals. This bill would not even go that far for unborn children, but would merely provide the mother the option to relieve pain for the child. To fail to take such a modest step reveals a hardness of heart that defies both reason and compassion[/sign]

priestsforlife.org/pressreleases/painbill.htm

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Offering pain relief for unborn babies will open an unwanted can of worms for the pro -abortionists. Surley a blob of cells/a parasite/ a product of conception doesn’t need pain relief like actual human beings do?
Lies and more lies is what keeps their boat floating.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I just finished working up next year’s plan for our county Right to Life committee. One thing I recommend is getting “In the Womb” from the National Geographic.

shop.nationalgeographic.com/

This shows 4D shots of an elephant, a dolphin and a puppy in the womb, and the anti-life crowd** hate** it!

We will be showing it at all churchs in the county.

 

[bones_IV]

The contradictions in the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Ct, are numerous. But perhaps the most glaring problem is that the bill accepted as valid the Roe v Wade decision.

The National Right to Life Committee said, “This bill, supported by NRLC, would require abortionists to provide women seeking abortion after 20 weeks past fertilization (the beginning of the sixth month) a brochure explaining that there is “substantial evidence” that the abortion will cause pain to the unborn child, and advise them of their right to request the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the unborn child.”

Some pro-life groups actually supported the bill.

 

[milimac]

The contradictions in the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Ct, are numerous. But perhaps the most glaring problem is that the bill accepted as valid the Roe v Wade decision.

The National Right to Life Committee said, “This bill, supported by NRLC, would require abortionists to provide women seeking abortion after 20 weeks past fertilization (the beginning of the sixth month) a brochure explaining that there is “substantial evidence” that the abortion will cause pain to the unborn child, and advise them of their right to request the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the unborn child.”

Some pro-life groups actually supported the bill.

I think you’ll have to expound upon that a little more. The bill does not accept Roe v. Wade as valid but requires compassion in an unjust situation until that unjust situation (Roe v. Wade) can be overturned. It may have helped to awaken mothers to the reality that their unborn child is a human being that feels pain. It had the potential to stop some abortions or to at least bring the mothers to the realization of what they did and seek healing and reconciliation sooner.

Seeking to alleviate some of the effects of the evil of abortion now, while continuing to fight against that evil, is not compromising with it.

Are you saying that there were some pro-life groups against the bill? Which ones?

 

[bones_IV]

I think you’ll have to expound upon that a little more. The bill does not accept Roe v. Wade as valid but requires compassion in an unjust situation until that unjust situation (Roe v. Wade) can be overturned. It may have helped to awaken mothers to the reality that their unborn child is a human being that feels pain. It had the potential to stop some abortions or to at least bring the mothers to the realization of what they did and seek healing and reconciliation sooner.

Seeking to alleviate some of the effects of the evil of abortion now, while continuing to fight against that evil, is not compromising with it.

Are you saying that there were some pro-life groups against the bill? Which ones?

Let me ask you this. Would you support a bill that ensures death? How can you call yourself pro-life if the only reason you’re pro-life is because the baby feels pain? It is one of the most hypocritical pieces of legislation I have ever seen. We are to speak the truth and mean it!

 

[milimac]

Let me ask you this. Would you support a bill that ensures death? How can you call yourself pro-life if the only reason you’re pro-life is because the baby feels pain? It is one of the most hypocritical pieces of legislation I have ever seen. We are to speak the truth and mean it!

As long as abortion is legal – and we should do everything we can to change that – requiring mothers to be informed about the pain their baby will feel may have helped to open their eyes and changed their minds, and it may have helped clinic workers to wake up as well. The unfortunate reality is that many mothers who undergo abortions either believe the lie that what is growing inside of them is nothing other than a lump of cells, or they know it at a certain level but refuse to acknowledge it. This bill could have brought such women to their senses before it was too late.

I’m not pro-life only because babies feel pain – it would still be evil even if they did not feel pain.

You may as well be against sidewalk counseling, protesting, requiring women to view an ultrasound or remains of other aborted babies, or other methods to inform them of what exactly they are doing since none of these things do anything to make abortion illegal either.

I respect the viewpoint that it’s absurd to administer pain relief yet still kill the unborn child, but that’s the point. The unfortunate reality is that until we can overturn the absurd laws that allow abortion we have to deal with that absurdity and lessen its effects as much as possible. The mothers who would’ve undergone an abortion would’ve hopefully seen the absurdity of it all too. For now we’ll never know.

I repect Judy Brown and the American Life League, and even send them donations from time-to-time. But I disagree with what sure seems to be an all-or-nothing approach to fighting abortion. I’ll take a total defeat of abortion if I can, but I’m not going to settle for nothing in the meantime. I’m more on the same page with Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life: priestsforlife.org/blog/ (See Dec 7 entry). And if you accuse him of not being pro-life then…I’ll just quietly and cautiously step away from this discussion.

Here’s Judy Brown’s opposing take on it:
all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php (See Dec 8 entry)

 

[bones_IV]

We cannot allow politics to twist our minds. It seems you have this “I’m putting my faith in politics agenda”. I think that Fr. Frank Pavone is quite wrong on this.

milimac:

But I disagree with what sure seems to be an all-or-nothing approach to fighting abortion.

This is sending the message that you’re really not pro-life.

milimac:

The unfortunate reality is that until we can overturn the absurd laws that allow abortion we have to deal with that absurdity and lessen its effects as much as possible.

It’s statements like this that lead to a fascist dictatorship or an Orwellian 1984. “Lessening the effects of abortion” does not have any effect on the culture of death whatsoever.

milimac:

You may as well be against sidewalk counseling, protesting, requiring women to view an ultrasound or remains of other aborted babies, or other methods to inform them of what exactly they are doing since none of these things do anything to make abortion illegal either.

That’s just stupid. Judie Brown, is reiterating the Church’s stance. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with Mother Church.

 

[milimac]

That’s just stupid. Judie Brown, is reiterating the Church’s stance. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with Mother Church.

Is she? I respect her opinion, but I disagree, and I especially disagree with those who accuse others who are fighting against abortion of not being pro-life. And the Church seems to agree…
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PS.HTM#EV.3.5.0.73:
EvangeliumVitae_aPapalEncyclical:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Is it possible, right now, to overturn or completely abrogate the abortion law in our country? (We weren’t even able to do that yet in South Dakota)

Did the legislation attempt to limit the harm done by abortion law and attempt to lessen its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality? (Again, if the aim was getting more women to face the reality of what they were doing and abortions were prevented as a result, it’s hard to argue that the aim of the law was to increase the harm done.)

Were groups and elected officials whose absolute personal opposition to abortion well known supporting this legislation? (From what I’ve read, ALL.org was in the minority among pro-life groups. But if you look at the other legislators and groups that opposed the legislation, ALL.org wasn’t exactly in good company)

Now you may disagree on the second point and think that the legislation would not have reduced the harm done, but I resent the accusation that others are not pro-life because they do feel it would’ve reduced harm.

 

[bones_IV]

Is she? I respect her opinion, but I disagree, and I especially disagree with those who accuse others who are fighting against abortion of not being pro-life. And the Church seems to agree…
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PS.HTM#EV.3.5.0.73:

Is it possible, right now, to overturn or completely abrogate the abortion law in our country? (We weren’t even able to do that yet in South Dakota)

Did the legislation attempt to limit the harm done by abortion law and attempt to lessen its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality? (Again, if the aim was getting more women to face the reality of what they were doing and abortions were prevented as a result, it’s hard to argue that the aim of the law was to increase the harm done.)

Were groups and elected officials whose absolute personal opposition to abortion well known supporting this legislation? (From what I’ve read, ALL.org was in the minority among pro-life groups. But if you look at the other legislators and groups that opposed the legislation, ALL.org wasn’t exactly in good company)

Now you may disagree on the second point and think that the legislation would not have reduced the harm done, but I resent the accusation that others are not pro-life because they do feel it would’ve reduced harm.

Apples and oranges my friend. The critical question here is are we really truly serious about saving every last baby? Not everything in encyclicals are infallible you know. The problem with the unborn child awareness act is that it allows abortions to go on. Why live a lie in voting for a law that does such a thing? At least Brian Rohrbough had the guts to speak his opinion.

rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5191448,00.html

 

[milimac]

Not everything in encyclicals are infallible you know.

I mean no offense, but Evangelium Vitae seems a little more thought out and carries a little more weight with me than the opinion of bones_IV. Maybe it’s just because I’m a wacky Catholic, but being a papal encyclical written by Pope John Paul II is a definite plus as well.

Have a good evening.

 

[bones_IV]

I mean no offense, but Evangelium Vitae seems a little more thought out and carries a little more weight with me than the opinion of bones_IV. Maybe it’s just because I’m a wacky Catholic, but being a papal encyclical written by Pope John Paul II is a definite plus as well.

Have a good evening.

I sure hope you realize how inconsistent you’re sounding.

RE: the unborn child pain awareness act
Question from laura on 12/7/2006:
Hi Judie-in my opinion-this act is a joke. In one sense, it just gives the prodeath more ammo and leverage to do abortions for with this being said, the abortion (murder) is allowed to continue after this is briefed to the woman choosing abortion. It does nothing for the child. I shudder remembering back to when I was faced with the choice of abortion. I was pregnant with our third child going through a rocky marriage. We were both in our late 30’s and my soon to be ex-husband (he left me when I was 8 months pregnant) proposed abortion using the excuse of higher birth defects. I said no. I did cave in with him pressuring me to have an ammiocentesis done. My mind was already made up on having my child, no matter the outcome. She is now a beautiful four yr old whom I love dearly. She is stubborn and strong-willed, and at times sassy (aggravates her siblings) yet I have no regrets on keeping her. She can be rotten at times yet she is God’s creature. I couldn’t bear living with myself if I had chosen murder even though she was an unplanned pregnancy. I guess what they were trying to do with this act is to hopefully tug at an ignorant woman’s heartstring to reconsider her decision of abortion yet in reality, it does nothing for the child. Why abort when one can choose adoption? I kept my child although it was a hard choice. It’s tough being a single mom who is also in the military (air force reservist currently on active duty locally). It’s really tough yet somehow we make it through each day. When she is older and I have more time, hopefully I’ll have more time to where I can take part myself in the prolife causes. I sure hope to live to see the day that abortions will be a thing of the past and more people value the culture of life over death. Thank you, Judie for all that you do and hopefully, maybe my personal experience may convince women thinking of abortion to reconsider. Yours in Christ, Laura

Answer by Judie Brown on 12/10/2006: Dear Laura
You are totally, one hundred percent correct. I cannot understand why any pro-life group would have supported or pressed for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, particularly because it is even scientifically bogus.
It is stories like yours that inspires me to continue this struggle. God be with you, Laura.
Judie Brown

COPYRIGHT 2006

 

[milimac]

I sure hope you realize how inconsistent you’re sounding.

If I realized it I sure wouldn’t say it. If I’m inconsistent don’t just tell me “you’re inconsistent”, show me!

RE: the unborn child pain awareness act
Question from laura on 12/7/2006:
Hi Judie-in my opinion-this act is a joke. In one sense, it just gives the prodeath more ammo and leverage to do abortions for with this being said, the abortion (murder) is allowed to continue after this is briefed to the woman choosing abortion. It does nothing for the child.

It does do something for the child if it makes the mother realize what she’s doing and she doesn’t go through with the abortion: it saves the baby’s life! If a woman is going to murder her child, which is what abortion is, then at least make sure she knows what she’s doing, even if you can’t stop her. I agree its absurd that she should be allowed to continue the process and murder her child, but that absurdity is the abortion law itself, not any requirement to inform her of the pain her baby is feeling, which might actually dissuade her from going through with it. Are you really against any form of dissuasion from abortion until it is made illegal?!

**Answer by Judie Brown on 12/10/2006:**Dear Laura

You are totally, one hundred percent correct. I cannot understand why any pro-life group would have supported or pressed for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, particularly because it is even scientifically bogus.

What is she referring to as being scientifically bogus? Is she saying unborn babies don’t feel pain throughout all 9 months of pregnancy? If so, I have trouble believing that.

 

[bones_IV]

If I realized it I sure wouldn’t say it. If I’m inconsistent don’t just tell me “you’re inconsistent”, show me!

It does do something for the child if it makes the mother realize what she’s doing and she doesn’t go through with the abortion: it saves the baby’s life! If a woman is going to murder her child, which is what abortion is, then at least make sure she knows what she’s doing, even if you can’t stop her. I agree its absurd that she should be allowed to continue the process and murder her child, but that absurdity is the abortion law itself, not any requirement to inform her of the pain her baby is feeling, which might actually dissuade her from going through with it. Are you really against any form of dissuasion from abortion until it is made illegal?!

What is she referring to as being scientifically bogus? Is she saying unborn babies don’t feel pain throughout all 9 months of pregnancy? If so, I have trouble believing that.

It’s simple abortion is a violation of human rights. I take exception to those who tell me that partisan politics will end abortion. I would rather rely on God to end abortion then politicians thank you. I honestly pity those who think they can rely on their efforts to end abortion. It seems that you are attempting to politicize abortion. It’s an act of murder, not a political issue. It’s that simple. Do you want to legislate abortion by passing this bill that still allows abortions to continue? Bush by one stroke of the pen could have made abortion illegal. That’s the cold reality, it is what it is.

 

[bones_IV]

milimac:

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, **when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” **

Let’s get a few things straight with this passage in Evangelium Vitae. Milimac, please read this section of the encyclical again. I’m amazed at how people use 73.3 of Evangelium Vitae to support legislation, politicians w/ exceptions and legitimizing Roe v. Wade. Pope John Paul II was addressing “a elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known”. No where in this paragraph does it say that we **should **or **must **support such a legislation. Please consider the following. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would have helped mothers who want to abort their babies rest easier knowing that the baby, prior to the abortion murder, would be given a pain killer. Now are you going to tell me that this is having an effect on the culture of death? I don’t think so. If you think so, then you’re in deep trouble my friend. You really need to reconsider this Milimac.

 

[WenckebachCath]

I have read that there is no measurable brain wave activity until a fetus is 6-8 weeks. I’m not sure at what point the nervous system is mature enough to feel pain. Remember, pain is a survival mechanism, but wouldn’t have a use in an undeveloped fetus, since a fetus has no way of protecting itself in response to pain. I would suspect that by 3 months post conception the fetus might feel pain. I seriously doubt that a baby in the very early stages of development feels pain.

I state this from a scientific perspective. The ability to perceive pain is unrelated to whether a fetus is a human being or not. There are some people who never feel pain due to a defect in their nervous systems. This is a very dangerous condition because they don’t have the normal self protection mechanism that you and I have.

 

[milimac]

bones_IV:
Let’s get a few things straight with this passage in Evangelium Vitae. Milimac, please read this section of the encyclical again. I’m amazed at how people use 73.3 of Evangelium Vitae to support legislation, politicians w/ exceptions and legitimizing Roe v. Wade. Pope John Paul II was addressing “a elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known”. No where in this paragraph does it say that we **should **or **must **support such a legislation.

Neither does it say we shouldn’t. In fact, it says we can. I think good Catholics are free to disagree on what is effective in fighting abortion.

Please consider the following. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would have helped mothers who want to abort their babies rest easier knowing that the baby, prior to the abortion murder, would be given a pain killer. Now are you going to tell me that this is having an effect on the culture of death? I don’t think so. If you think so, then you’re in deep trouble my friend. You really need to reconsider this Milimac.

I am reconsidering it, but I have not yet been convinced that it was a bad piece of legislation. You have a legitimate argument that some mothers who want to abort their babies might rest easier knowing that the baby might be given pain killers. There will no doubt be some twisted people who think they are being compassionate by administering painkillers to their children before killing them. But they are twisted already just by being in that abortion clinic. This is truly the last chance of saving the baby for those mothers who might have any bit of healthy conscience left.

Have you ever listened to any of the women who have had abortions and regretted it? Everything is done to make them believe they are just undergoing a routine medical procedure. They are pushed into it or given incorrect information, if any information is given at all. The more we can inform that conscience with truth (her baby is a human being that feels pain, here’s what your baby looks like now, etc), the better chance we have of reaching her before it’s too late, or if it doesn’t reach her until after the fact, bringing her to repentence, reconciliation, and healing for the salvation of her soul.

I really don’t think a mother’s fained handwringing over having killed her baby, but at least doing it compassionately is as likely an outcome. Most likely,I think she would rather deny that her baby feels pain, is not really a person, etc. But I do think we could’ve saved some.