An abortion is the medically induced termination of a pregnancy through the removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb of his/her mother. An abortion results in the death of a preborn baby, and according to the age and size of the fetus, several methods are employed to cause this result. In the state of Victoria, abortions can be carried out through all nine months of a pregnancy.
At fertilization, the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman join in the fallopian tube to form a new person, unique and inimitable. Forty-six chromosomes - twenty-three from the father and twenty-three from the mother - combine together to form a totally separate and complex genetic blueprint which will pre-determine all the physical characteristics of a new human being.
Every year, fifty million of these tiny, individual children are killed by abortion worldwide. In Victoria alone, over twenty thousand tiny Australians meet their death this way.
"How Do They Perform Abortions?
MEDICAL ABORTION
Non-surgical abortions, or medical abortions, are performed in the first five to nine weeks of a pregnancy.
Morning After Pill/Postinor-2
Postinor-2, or the morning after pill, is taken in two parts within 72 hours of intercourse. The consumption of postinor-2 prevents ovulation, subsequently preventing conception. Should conception already be achieved, the morning after pill affects the lining of the uterus and therefore prevents the implantation of the embryo.
RU-486/Mifeprex
A medical abortion usually requires several trips to an abortuary, and the procedure is accomplished through the taking of the drug RU-486. This form of medication effectively obstructs the hormone ‘progesterone’ from preserving the vital nutrient lining in the uterus during pregnancy. The disintegration of this nutrient lining ensures the baby starves to death and is eventually expelled from the body of the woman.
On her first visit to the abortuary, a woman is given the drug mifepristone, which blocks the action of progesterone. A further visit 36-48 hours later sees a dose of artificial prostaglandins, such as misoprostol, administered to the mother. This drug causes uterine contractions and the woman delivers a dead baby, sometimes as long as five days later.
The woman must visit the abortuary a third time to ensure that the abortion has effectively transpired; this usually takes place about two weeks after the original dosage. In 5 to 10% of cases, a surgical abortion is required to complete a medical abortion.
SURGICAL ABORTION
A surgical abortion ends a pregnancy by surgically removing the preborn child from the womb of the mother. Surgical abortions can take place from six weeks gestation.
Manual Vaccuum Aspiration, or Suction & Curettage Abortion
An estimated 88% to 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of a pregnancy, that is, in the first three months after conception.
Vaccuum aspiration, or suction aspiration abortion remains the most common murder method practiced in this time-frame. A suction aspiration abortion takes on average less than ten minutes, and is generally performed after the seventh week of a pregnancy.
In order to carry out a vacuum aspiration, the cervix of the mother is dilated with metal rods, and a tube attached to a suction machine is inserted. This tube is hollow and plastic, but has a razor sharp edge to the tip. With up to 29 times the strength of a common household vacuum, the baby is violently sucked out through the tube, his/her tiny body shredded in the process. A device within the suction machine separates the blood from the fragmented body parts of the tiny child, and the remains are collected in a container for disposal.
Once the baby has been ripped from his/her mother, the placenta must be separated from the uterus, and the uterine wall must be scraped clean. Every attempt must be made by the abortionist to identify all of the body parts of the child, as any tissue or limbs left inside can escalate to sometimes even a life-threatening infection to the woman. The placenta is also disposed of in the collection canister.
SUCTION AND CURETTAGE ABORTION OF 9 WEEK OLD FETUS
Dr Lille demonstrates the surgical abortion technique between 14 and 23 weeks gestation.
Dilation & Curettage (D&C)
A Dilation & Curettage Abortion or a D&C is similar to the Vacuum Aspiration Abortion, and is the second most common method of abortion. Like the suction aspiration method, this process takes about ten minutes to complete, and is also completed in the first trimester of a pregnancy.
During a D&C, the cervix is dilated and a sharp curette is inserted into the uterus. This looped steel knife is employed to slice the baby to pieces, whereupon the mangled flesh and dismembered limbs of the tiny child are scraped out into a basin and disposed of.
The placenta is then also scraped from the uterus and through the cervix. Bleeding during a D&C is usually profuse. The blood loss from a D&C is greater than a suction aspiration abortion, as is the likelihood of uterine perforation and infection.
As with a suction aspiration abortion, to avoid the risk of infection or haemorrhaging, the remains of the baby are examined in order to ensure all fetal parts have been successfully removed.
An intracardiac injection abortion usually takes place around the sixteenth week. During this procedure, an ultrasound guides the abortionist to the tiny beating heart of the child, whereupon an injection of poison – digoxin or potassium chloride - is administered, causing an immediate heart attack.
This type of abortion is usually performed to reduce the number of babies in a multiple pregnancy following in vitro fertilization procedures, if multiple embryos were implanted to increase the likelihood of pregnancy.
DILATATION AND EVACUATION ABORTION OF 14 WEEK OLD FETUS
Dilation and evacuation abortion is usually performed in the first half of the second trimester, that is, the thirteenth - twentieth week of pregnancy. (A D&E abortion, however, can be performed up to approximately twenty-eight weeks.) By this stage the bones of the child have calcified, the tendons and muscles are more developed, and he/she is too large to be sucked out or as easily scraped to pieces as in a vacuum aspiration or D&C abortion.
During this procedure, the cervix of the woman is dilated using tightly wound seaweed sticks called luminaria. These sticks are inserted into her cervix and left for a period of a day or two proceeding the abortion. These small sticks of seaweed expand from moisture, and in so doing, force the cervix open so that the abortionist can begin his work.
Now the abortionist employs a plier-like instrument which he inserts into the uterus of the woman. These forceps are used to grasp an arm or a leg of the tiny child. After the limb is secured, the forceps must be twisted, rotated and pulled in order to dismember the baby. The tendons and muscles of the child are more formed, so the abortionist must get a firm grip with the forceps.
When a limb is torn off, it is pulled out of the uterus and placed on a tray, where eventually all parts must be assembled and identified to ensure nothing is left behind. This gory practice is repeated until only the head and torso of the child remains inside the uterus. At this point an instrument called a ‘cranialclast’ is utilized to crush the skull of the baby, which is then removed in pieces.
Lastly, a curette is inserted into the uterus in order to ensure all the remains of the baby are removed.
This procedure, as with all abortion procedures, is done without the administration of anaesthetic to the baby.
DILATATION AND EVACUATION ABORTION OF 23 WEEK OLD FETUS
Dilation and Extraction (D and X) / Partial Birth Abortion
A Dilation and Extraction abortion is also known as partial birth abortion, and is employed during the late second or third trimester of a pregnancy.
This procedure takes two or three days. As in a D&E abortion, the cervix must be dilated with the insertion of laminaria, or thin seaweed sticks employed to absorb bodily fluids.
After dilating the cervix of the woman, the abortionist uses an ultrasound machine to distinguish the position of the baby, and employs forceps to grasp the legs of this five to nine month old child. This fully viable baby is turned so that he/she can be delivered feet first and facing down, in the breech position.
Dragged from the uterus of the mother until only the head is left inside the birth canal and with arms, legs and torso fully exposed, the baby kicks and struggles as the abortionist pierces the skull base with surgical scissors which are then opened to widen the incision. The brains of the child are suctioned out via a suction catheter which is placed in the opening and the skull collapses, ensuring the delivery of a lifeless baby.
The placenta is removed by vacuum aspiration and with the employment of a cannula.
At the September 1992 National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar in Texas, abortionist Martin Haskell described a D&X abortion this way:
"The abortionist takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors. He carefully advances the tip, curve down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull. Having safely entered the skull, he then spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the foetus, removing it completely from the patient."
Due to a risk to the mother, saline abortions have been removed from common practice, and are rarely performed today.
A saline abortion is performed after the sixteenth week of pregnancy, by which time enough fluid has accumulated in the amniotic sac. During a saline abortion, a large needle is inserted into the abdominal wall of the woman, and into the amniotic sac where the baby resides. 50-250ml of amniotic fluid is withdrawn at this point, and is replaced with an injection of concentrated salt solution. This results in hypernatremia or acute salt poisoning of the baby, as he/she breathes in and swallows this solution.
Within approximately one hour, the baby dies of severe hypermatremia or acute salt poisoning, with development of widespread vasodilatation, edema, congestion, dehydration, organ failture, burned skin, brain haemorrhage, and shock. Some 35 hours after the saline injection, the mother goes into labor and delivers a dead, shriveled, blackened, and burned child.
Prostaglandin Abortion
A dose of prostaglandin hormones is injected into the uterine muscle, which induces violent labor resulting in the death of the fetus. Prostaglandin abortions, typically performed in the second and early third trimester, are rarely used today, due to the relatively high chance that the fetus will survive the abortion and be born alive.
The following photographs remain the property of The Centre for Bioethical Reform and have been reprinted with permission. To confirm the authenticity of these photographs, PLEASE CLICK HERE.
GRAPHIC ABORTION DVD This DVD is displayed with permission from The Centre for Bioethical Reform
Part 1
Part 2
Does The Fetus Feel Pain?
What they say about fetal pain “By every measure, the fetus from 16-19 weeks reacts to a painful stimulus in a manner consistent with the perception of pain. At 24-25 weeks post conception, a fetus displays all of the physiological and behavioural reactions you observe in children and adults.”
- Doctor Ken Craig, a researcher of pain in premature babies at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver Province, August 30, 1995
“As early as eight to ten weeks’ gestation, and definitely by thirteen and a half weeks, the human fetus experiences organic pain.”
The cortex is developed between four and five weeks of age.
Reflex actions can be observed between four and seven weeks.
Brain waves are detectable between six and seven weeks.
Nerves connecting the spinal cord to peripheral structures have developed between six to eight weeks.
Adverse reactions
- Dr. Vincent Collins, Diplomat and Fellow of the American Board of Anesthesiologists, America Medical News, February 24, 1984. Dr. Collins listed the above factors as evidence that the fetus is capable of pain
"By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus, at that point, the fetal organic response to pain is more than a reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to avert the noxious stimuli."
- Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN
". . . The hub of the needle in the woman´s belly has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wiggles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish. It is the fetus that worries thus."
- R. Selzer, Yale University, "What I Saw in Abortion," Esquire, pp. 66-67 (A needle had been inserted through the mother´s abdominal wall and into the four-month-old baby´s amniotic sac)
". . . As soon as pain mechanism is present in the fetus - possibly as early as day 45 - the methods used will cause pain. The pain is more substantial and lasts longer the later the abortion is. It is most severe and lasts longest when the method is salt poisoning. . . . They are undergoing their death agony."
- Noonan, "The Experience of Pain," In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, Aletheia Books, 1981, p. 213
"The fetus needs to be heavily sedated. The changes in heart rate and increase in movement suggest that these stimuli are painful for the fetus. Certainly it cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache."
- Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
"Dilatation and evacuation, for example, where fetal tissue is progressively punctured, ripped, and crushed, and which is done after 13 weeks when the fetus certainly responds to noxious stimuli, would cause organic pain in the fetus. Saline amnioinfusion, where a highly concentrated salt solution burns away the outer skin of the fetus, also qualifies as a noxious stimulus."
- T. Sullivan, M.D., FAAP,Amer. Academy of Neurosurgeons
“I stood at a doctor’s side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure, and what I saw is branded forever on my mind. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating…Dr Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms – everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. Dr Haskell delivered the baby’s head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he’d used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just ‘reflexes’. I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death – people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.”
- Excerpted from statement by Brenda Pratt Shafer, RN, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary, US House of Representatives, Hearing on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, (HR 1833), 21 March 1996
"When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing."
- President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters, New York Times, Jan. 31, 1984
“…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."
- In testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee, Professor Robert White
"But between 17 and 26 it is increasingly possible that it starts to feel something and that abortions done in that period ought to use anaesthesia. I am pro-choice, but one should not muddle the two. One should think about how one is doing it in the most pain-free way."
- Professor Vivette Glover, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, London, August 2000
“…practitioners who undertake termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks or later should consider the requirements for feticide analgesia and sedation.”
- The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a British panel of medical and scientific experts, affirmed in October 1997 that fetal pain does exist
"Across the nation, Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) are full of bravely struggling preemies . . . The only difference between a child in the womb at this stage, or one born and cared for in an incubator, is how they receive oxygen -- either through the umbilical cord or through the lungs. There is no difference in their nervous systems.”
- Dr. Paul Ranalli, Professor of Neurology at the University of Toronto, presentation on "Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion", June 1997
“…Careful anatomical studies reveal, in fact, that the ascending pain fibers reach the cortex by 20 weeks. They then ‘sit’ briefly, for a few days to a few weeks, before making their final push upward to establish their ultimate connections (synapses) with the surface grey matter neurons that register a conscious awareness of pain. Allowing some room for individual variability, the brain of an unborn child will begin to register pain impulses just after 20 weeks with ever-increasing amounts of pain reception reaching millions of surface cortical neurons between 20 and 24 weeks.”
- Doctor Paul Ranalli, Professor of Neurology at the University of Toronto, National Right to Life News, “The emerging reality of fetal pain in late abortions,” September, 2000
“We actually still do things to babies without anaesthesia. Maybe this is a wake-up call to obstetricians and neonatologists.”
- Professor Mitchell, Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition
"For two hours I could feel her struggling inside me. But then as suddenly as it began she stopped. Even today I remember her very last kick on my left side. She had no strength left. Despite my grief and guilt I was relieved that her pain was finally over."
- Nancyjo Mann, founder of Women Exploited By Abortion on the pain the fetus must experience during a saline abortion
“When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion a child would. But they soon learned he did.”
- Alert Liley, Professor of Foetology, University of Auckland, New Zealand
“The ability to feel pain and to respond to it is clearly not a phenomenon that develops de novo at birth. Indeed, much of enlightened modern obstetrical practice and procedure seeks to minimize sensory deprivation of, and sensory insult to, the fetus at and after birth. Over the last 18 years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Liley – the father of foetology. Observations of the fetal electrocardiogram, and the increase in fetal movements in saline abortions, indicates that the fetus experiences discomfort as it dies. Indeed, one doctor who, the New York Times wrote, ‘conscientiously performs’ saline abortions stated: ‘When you inject the saline, you often see an increase in fetal movements, it’s horrible’.”
- Extract from letter to President Ronald Reagan from professors and past presidents of American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Feb 1984
“Cutaneous sensory receptors appear in the perioral area in the seventh week of gestation.”
- Pain and Its Effects on the Human Fetus, N. Eng. J. Med, vol 317, no 21, p 1322, Nov 19, 1987
When Ronald Reagan was president, he was known for seeing the big picture but sometimes slipping up on fine points. His friends said that he was "not a detail person." So when he said, in January 1984, that preborn children suffer "long and agonizing" pain when they are aborted, a list of experts lined up to denounce him. "Outright demagoguery!" screamed The Washington Post. But neither Reagan nor his pro-life friends backed down, and there ensued a brief battle of experts.
The expert quoted by the pro-abortion side was Ervin E. Nichols, director of practice activities for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). He pontificated: "We are unaware of any evidence of any kind that would substantiate the claim that pain is perceived by a fetus." Two former ACOG presidents fired back. "It can be clearly demonstrated," testified Dr. Richard T. F. Schmidt, "that fetuses seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner which in an adult would be interpreted as reaction to pain." Dr. Fred Hofmeister wrote that the data from electrocardiograms during saline abortions shows "that the fetus experiences discomfort as it dies."
Many other experts wrote or spoke out on the issue, including a specialist in pain control, Dr. Vincent J. Collins, a diplomate of the American Board of Anesthesiologists. He estimated the age at which a preborn child feels pain: "As early as eight to 10 weeks' gestation, and definitely by thirteen and a half weeks, the human fetus experiences organic pain."
To understand the debate, you must understand the distinction between organic pain and psychological pain, and the problem with detecting pain.
Organic pain is the body's response to some kind of attack, such as a burn or a bang. More technically, organic pain is a physiological or neurological response to noxious (harmful or damaging) stimuli. Psychological pain is more complex: If you can imagine harmful or unpleasant sensations, sense them coming, or remember them, that's psychological pain.
The distinction is interesting, but not relevant. A child may not have expected his parents and physician to hurt him, but that doesn't lessen the pain. And a dead child may tell no tales, but that too doesn't mean it didn't hurt. Saying that it doesn't hurt because the child neither foresaw nor remembers the pain is just mean, like pulling wings off of butterflies and saying it doesn't hurt because they're too small to feel it.
Generally, detecting pain is not complex: The patient complains. The physician doesn't see pain; he hears "Ow!" But a problem arises when your patient won't--or worse, can't--complain. In medical jargon, it is a challenge to detect pain in a "non-communicative subject." Preborn babies, for example, cannot tell you where it hurts, or how much.
It is possible to detect organic pain in a non-communicative subject. Dr. Thomas Sullivan, a pediatric neurologist, says that there are two criteria. First, the subject must have the proper equipment to sense noxious stimuli. For example, a chicken with its head cut off may run around for awhile, but it's missing some of the necessary structures to feel pain.
Dr. Sullivan says that the equipment that humans use to sense pain includes special pain receptors in nerve endings that connect nerve fibers to transmit signals from the receptor to the spinal cord; neurons within the spinal cord that carry the signal to the brain; the thalamus, which senses the pain; and the cortex, which supplies psychological responses to the pain and also directs a response. All of this complex equipment is in place, states Dr. Sullivan, "perhaps as early as eight weeks, but certainly by thirteen and a half weeks."
If the equipment is there, a neurologist can look for the second element: Does the subject "respond aversely"? There are different kinds of responses to stimuli, reflexive and aversive. When the doctor hits your knee with a hammer, you kick, but this is not evidence of pain or anger. This is a reflexive response. If you stick your fingers down your throat, a gagging reflex occurs without any consultation with your brain. An aversive response is far more complex; it engages the whole central nervous system and "[involves] the whole body's attempt to escape or avert noxious stimuli."
Dr. William Matviuw, an obstetrician/gynecologist, says that the nerves that sense pain reach the skin of the fetus by the ninth week of gestation. Electrical impulses pass through the neural fibers and through the spinal column between the eighth and ninth week of gestation. Detectable brain activity in response to noxious stimuli occurs between the eighth and tenth week.
1. Using all this equipment and then responding may take a little longer, says Dr. Matviuw. At seven weeks, a child will pull his lips back if you tap on his mouth. By 10 weeks, the palms of the hands are sensitive to touch. By 11 weeks, the face will respond to touch. "By thirteen and a half weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus."
2. The information about the pain a child feels when an abortion does not kill instantly has been available for years. But the whole point of an abortion is to deny the humanity of preborn children. Abortionists won't let a little pain--or a lot of pain in a little person--get in the way of that fierce denial.
Stanislaw Reinis and Jerome M. Goldman, The Development of the Brain, 1980, pp. 223-235. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publishers.
V. J. Collins, Principles of Anesthesiology 1976, pp. 922-923. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Fabiger.
Epilogue
The question that comes to mind regarding fetal pain is "Why doesn't the pro-abortion side want the public to know that fetal pain exists?" Surely the abortionist doesn't care whether the fetus feels pain. Like a paid assassin, the abortionist is interested only in receiving compensation for his service.
I believe the reason for hiding this information from the general public is the fact that parents naturally want to shield their children from any pain and suffering. If the pro-abortion crowd can persuade parents that the fetus is not truly a person, then there is no reason to protect the fetus from harm. If parents knew that they were causing pain and distress to their child they would not choose to abort.
Fetal Pain: Real or Relative?
Donald DeMarco
Reproduced with Permission
The worlds of philosophy and humor often intersect so that philosophers can sometimes be mistaken for comedians and vice versa. To the age old question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" one might not be certain whether to respond with a frown or a smile. A contemporary variant of the question leaves no doubt about the appropriate response: "If a husband says something and his wife is not there to correct him, is he still wrong?"
But there is decidedly nothing humorous about the question, "Does a human fetus feel pain during an abortion if no one is there to verify the pain scientifically?" We like to think that we citizens of the 21st century are compassionate people. And we place this most humane disposition, if not at the top, surely near the top of all human virtues. Being sensitive to the pain of another seems to be a clear sign of one's humanness. Not to feel the pain of another is considered cold, distant, and callously impersonal.
It is rather curious, then, that the subject of fetal pain, rather than activating the springs of compassion that exist in all of us, is often politicized, depersonalized, trivialized, and relativized. If a person is truly compassionate, it would seem that his sensitivity to another's pain would not be subject to ideological compromise. It appears disingenuous to say, "I will feel your pain as long as it is politically correct to do so."
President Ronald Reagan, in a 1984 address to the National Religious Broadcasters, made a most provocative as well as politically incorrect statement in saying, "When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing." The president's statement was reported by the New York Times (Jan. 31, 1984).
In response to Mr. Reagan's remark, a group of professors, including pain specialists and two past presidents of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote him a letter in support of his statement:
We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester, the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well underway." The word "sentient" is key here, for it includes the capacity to experience pain as well as other sensations that are transmitted through the nervous system.
In the year 2000, the House of Lords in Britain conducted an inquiry into "fetal sentience" that included researching the ability of the fetus to feel pain. The inquiry concluded that "after 23 weeks of growth, higher areas of the brain are active and starting to form connections with nerves that will convey pain signals to the cortex." It also concluded that "the capacity for an experience of pain comparable to that in a newborn baby is certainly present by 24 weeks after conception."
Researchers into fetal pain explain that three neuro anatomic factors are necessary for the experience of pain: 1) sensory nerves that convey the message of pain to the brain; 2) the part of the brain called the thalamus, that receives this message; 3) the motor nerves that transmit the message of pain to the site of the pain stimulus. These three factors are present at 8 weeks of gestation.
Ultrasound imaging of the fetus, together with the observations of heart and brain changes (using electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms) have demonstrated how the human fetus does, indeed, respond to pain, touch and sound. Dr. Bernard Nathanson's video, The Silent Scream, shows a 12week old fetus dodging the instrument employed in a suction abortion time and again as its heartbeat doubles in rate.
Dr. Robert White, director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, testified before the House Constitution Subcommittee of Congress in 1997 that the fetus of 20 weeks gestation "is fully capable of experiencing pain." "Without doubt," he went on to say, "partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for an infant."
Dr. Paul Ranalli, professor of neurology at the University of Toronto, has stated, in reference to the pain felt by premature babies at a particular stage of development, that "The only difference between a child in the womb at this stage, or one born and cared for in an incubator, is how they receive oxygen - either through the umbilical cord or through the lungs. There is no difference in their nervous systems." Numerous studies have emerged over the past year suggesting that premature or newborn babies actually feel pain more intensely than do adults. This may not be entirely surprising since, as Dr. Ranalli notes, "babies under 30 weeks have a "newly established pain system that is raw and unmodified at this tender age."
More recently, reported in April of 2006, a research team from University College London analyzed brain scans of premature infants when blood samples were drawn using a heel lance. The researchers observed surges of blood and oxygen during the procedure indicating conclusively that pain registered in the sensory levels of the infants' brains. "We have shown for the first time," the lead researcher, Professor Maria Fitzgerald stated, "that the information about pain reaches the brain in premature infants."
Research into fetal pain has produced a mixed reaction. The fundamental problem lies in the fact that a fetus cannot tell us that he is experiencing pain. Yet neither can an infant or an animal articulate the experience of pain. Wherever a disclosure of pain is not possible, we look for its indication. There are enough indications that when a tree falls, it makes a sound. Ear witnesses do not need to be present to verify this fact. A rudimentary knowledge of physics and the vibratory nature of sound suffices. We accept the indications as evidence and do not require personal witnesses.
Because the myriad of scientific studies into fetal pain have been received by many responsible people as offering credible indications that the unborn fetus and premature baby can experience pain, fetal legislation has been enacted. Senator Sam Brownback (R KS) and Representative Chris Smith (R NJ) introduced a bill in the Senate and House in 2004 called the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act." The law would require abortion providers to inform women about to undergo late term abortions that their fetuses can feel pain at that stage. It would give women the opportunity to have pain control medication administered to their unborn prior to the abortion.
Arkansas was the first state to enact a law requiring doctors who perform abortions to provide anesthesia for late term fetuses. Minnesota followed suit in August of 2005, then Georgia. The Minnesota law requires that all women seeking abortions who are more than 20 weeks pregnant must be offered anesthesia for their fetuses. Fetal pain legislation has been introduced in at least 23 states. In April 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed her state's fetal pain legislation.
Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, has vehemently criticized the fetal pain law in her state, arguing that "We do not see the point in inflicting this kind of cruelty on women and families at that point in their lives." Ms. Stoesz, in relativizing fetal pain, apparently believes that it pales in comparison to that which the aborting mother and other members of her family undergo. From all indications, however, fetal pain is very real. The fact that it has been politicized and relativized does not succeed in diminishing its excruciating reality one iota.
Dr. David A. Grimes, an abortionist, in referring to the issue of fetal pain (especially in fetuses younger than 29 weeks) writes: "This is an unknowable question." Nonetheless, in the face of the "unknowable," how can he justify a decision to abort? Ignorance is not a justifying basis for performing an act that could cause another great pain. Fetal pain is "unknowable" for him, we must not forget, because he limits his avenue of knowledge to a strictly empirical methodology. By closing off other, more interpersonal or humane avenues, we would be equally uncertain about the pain experienced by premature babies, infants in the crib, and even adults. Compassion begins where empirical verifiability leaves off.
The Samaritan of the Gospel was compassionately drawn to the plight of the Levite. He did not relativize his neighbor's predicament by weighing it against his own inconvenience or public opinion. He was "Good" because he responded directly to his neighbor's pain. He did not put compassion on hold to give himself time to question whether his proposed action would be in keeping with the political correctness of his time. He was a human being who came compassionately to the aid of his suffering neighbor.
Fetal pain, especially after 10 weeks gestation, is a reality that cannot be relativized into oblivion. Anesthesia may help to reduce fetal pain. But what does one take to counteract the intellectual and moral anesthesia that deadens people's awareness that even an unborn human being is our neighbor and deserves from us a compassionate response?
It is imperative, however, that we refine our understanding of compassion. Every virtue has its bogus pretenders. Foolhardiness passes for courage, timidity for prudence, apathy for patience, obsequiousness for courtesy. But there is no counterfeit that is more successful in obfuscating the genuine article, especially in the present era, than false compassion.
The Russian existentialist philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, reflected the correct understanding of compassion when he stated that "compassion means a desire for a new and better life for the sufferer and a willingness to share his pain." In this proper sense of compassion as a virtue, compassion is obviously pro life. It is not consistent with true compassion to anesthetize the fetus before killing it. The act of killing can never be construed as helping the sufferer to have a better life.
The world needs to know that compassion is a virtue and, as such, is not an excuse for killing, but an expression of love that unites us with the one who is suffering in the hope of providing a better life for that sufferer.
One hopes that an increased awareness of the fact of fetal pain will awaken people to a true compassion that expresses itself not in a painless death for the unborn, as does counterfeit compassion, but in accord with the example of the Good Samaritan who responded to his neighbor's pain by helping him to secure a better life.
Dr Bernard Nathanson – The Silent Scream
Former abortionist, Dr Bernard Nathanson’s The Silent Scream depicts the distress of a twelve week, preborn baby as she attempts to evade the suction machine which has invaded the womb of her mother. One can observe the heart rate doubling as the distressed child tries to move away. Cornered at last, her tiny mouth opens in soundless cry.
What Do We Mean By Graphic Images & What Are Their Purpose?
Less than two weeks after the Abortion Law Reform Bill passed in law in the state of Victoria, legalising the killing of Australian children through all nine months of development, Victorian Premier John Brumby spoke in Federation Square as part of a road safety strategy campaign aimed at young people. During the press conference, Premier Brumby unveiled car wrecks, and Youth For Life members present likewise revealed graphic images depicting children slaughtered by abortion.
Some argue that subjecting these bloodied images of tiny, mangled children to a public forum is tasteless, offensive, upsetting and especially disrespectful to women who have had abortions. Yes, indeed it is. But how much more offensive is it if the young people of Australia should do nothing to help their unborn brothers and sisters and the mothers hurt by abortion? How much more upsetting is it if Australian youth do not appeal to men and women to protect defenceless children? The reality of abortion is glossed over in our society; cased in euphuisms and silenced in communities. A hidden issue, the truth that abortion kills babies is conveniently brushed aside by abortuaries and individuals who prey on women and profit from the blood of the unborn.
As with any injustice in history, however, pictorial evidence is central to raising awareness to an issue - and in so doing, educating a whole generation on the crime of abortion. If we do not know what abortion is, if we do not know what abortion does, and if we do not know what abortion looks like, we will never know why it must be abolished and why vulnerable women must be protected and assisted through their pregnancies.
Should we use graphic images?
Rev. Frank A. Pavone National Director, Priests For Life
Should graphic photos of babies who have been killed by abortion be used by pro-lifers who demonstrate on public sidewalks?
Even among those who oppose abortion, answers to this question vary. The dispute was recently brought to my attention again by a news article describing the concern of residents of a certain area that the graphic photos used by local pro-lifers disturbed the children.
I have demonstrated against abortion on the public sidewalks of almost every major city in America. I have used graphic images and have watched their effect. I am convinced they should be used, and here are some of the reasons.
1) The word abortion has lost practically all its meaning. Not even the most vivid description, in words alone, can adequately convey the horror of this act of violence. Abortion is sugar-coated by rhetoric which hides its gruesome nature. The procedure is never shown in the media. Too many people remain either in ignorance or denial about it, and hence too few are moved to do something to stop it. Graphic images are needed. A picture is worth a thousand words -- and in this battle, it can be worth many lives as well.
2) Graphic images of abortion have saved lives. One example is a letter I have from Violet Sherringford of New Jersey, who went to an abortion facility and found pro-life protesters there. "The posters they displayed, though very graphic, did succeed in bringing me back to reality and in conveying the horrible mutilation and dismemberment inflicted on the unborn child.... I decided to have the baby. It was the best decision I ever will make."
3) We use graphic images to save lives from other kinds of violence - I've seen graphic drawing by first and second graders accompanied by the words "Drugs Kill"." I've seen smashed cars put on public display with the sign, "Drunk Driving Kills." The LA Times 7/8/95 reported an effort at Jefferson High School to stop street violence. Freshmen were shown slide after slide of victims blown apart by bullets. The anti-war movement in America was given momentum in the early '70's by a famous photo of a napalmed girl. Efforts to save the starving have been spurred on by images of malnourished children. The examples can go on and on.
4) The fact that the use of such images is disturbing does not mean such use is wrong. The free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment apply even to speech which is disturbing, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld (see The Right to Protest, ACLU: Gora et al .). Such disturbance is part of the price we pay for freedom. People might also be disturbed, annoyed, and upset by the blaring sirens of an ambulance rushing through the neighborhood. Yet the noise serves a purpose: People's lives are at stake, and the ambulance must be given the right of way.
5) I too am concerned about little children who see graphic images. I am also concerned about the littler children those images depict. The key factor that will make the difference in how children react to seeing anything disturbing is the role of their parents, who are present in a loving and comforting way, answering their questions and calming their fears. But to say that the presence of children in a neighborhood forbids the use of graphic images leads to an absurd conclusion, for what neighborhoods have no children? Is free speech to be limited to adult-only communities? And even then, what is to be done for the adults who complain?
It seems to me, furthermore, that if we find it difficult to explain images of abortion to our children we will find it even more difficult to explain why we didn't do more to stop abortion itself. The bottom line is that if graphic images of abortion are too terrible to look at, then the abortions themselves are too terrible to tolerate. We need to expose the injustice, and then direct our displeasure toward those allow the injustice to continue, not toward those who speak against it.
The use of graphic images: re-thinking pro-life strategy
Rev. Frank A. Pavone National Director, Priests For Life
What we are doing is not enough.
The three biggest expenditures of pro-life money and manpower are crisis pregnancy support services, political activity (electing candidates and lobbying incumbents) and education.
Crisis pregnancy work is important but the vast majority of women in crisis pregnancies don’t go to crisis pregnancy centers for help; they go to abortion clinics. They don’t want help getting through a crisis pregnancy, they want help getting out of it. Moreover, as many as 80% who go to these centers are not abortion-minded!
Political activity is important, but the vast majority of voters don’t care very much about abortion as a political issue.
Education is important but when a culture is reluctant to learn that abortion is an act of violence which kills a baby, and when so many of those who need to hear the message are complicit in the injustice, people choose to turn away from listening to pro-life talks, attending pro-life events, or reading pro-life brochures. If our educational activity relies primarily on the voluntary consent of the audience we are trying to reach, we will not reach the audience we need to reach.
Much pro-life educational activity, moreover, simply assumes the truth of the proposition that abortion is an act of violence which kills a baby. Note here that often we are simply stating a conclusion without providing the evidence that leads to that conclusion. And if people don't want to believe that abortion kills a baby, they won't believe it.
People know and don't know, simultaneously.
In a sense, people already know this is a baby. But there are different kinds of knowing. One can assert that abortion takes a human life, as most Americans do assert. But without seeing it, one can also fail to appreciate the enormity of the evil, and can reconcile the assertion that it is wrong with the assertion that it is necessary, at least sometimes, and especially in the first trimester. This dynamic is reflected in the statistics regarding the positions of Americans on abortion. Most are in the middle, the "conflicted middle," holding that what is admittedly child killing should sometimes be allowed. This "conflicted middle" will decide the outcome of the abortion war in our country, and they have to be moved out of the middle.
When you want people to act to reform deeply embedded trends in society, it is not enough simply to know that the trends are wrong. One must be profoundly disturbed so as to be stirred to action. One must perceive the difference between evil and absolute evil, between tolerable evil and intolerable evil. One must be made angry enough to be willing to sacrifice to end injustice -- and in this sense, the very reason some say pictures don't work because they make people mad are really hitting upon the reason why they do work.
To most Americans, women in crisis pregnancy are real but their unborn babies are unreal (especially during the embryo and early fetal stages of prenatal development). To most Americans, the hardship of a mother’s crisis pregnancy evokes more sympathy than her baby’s death by abortion because the horror of abortion is far less real than the terror of crisis pregnancy.
The experience of those who use horrifying pictures teaches that those who haven’t seen abortion only think they know how evil it actually is. Some say aborting mothers believe God will punish but ultimately forgive abortion; but there are different levels of "believing" and a mother with a functioning conscience will find it easier to trivialize the spiritual consequences of abortion if she has never seen one.
The Respect Life Office director of an East coast Catholic archdiocese recently signed a letter telling a pro-life organization in his state that graphic images "… can make those in a crisis pregnancy more aggressive in pursuing an abortion…." There isn't a shred of evidence which even hints that seeing aborted babies makes women more likely to abort. Yet the president of a well known West coast Evangelical Protestant college made exactly the same statement ten years ago. This paralyzing myth persists despite the fact that many women have told us that they aborted because no one showed them a picture but no woman has ever told us she aborted because she saw a picture.
Visual learning and the Culture of Life
By Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate, Priests for Life and niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“A picture is worth a thousand words.”
Our learning experiences in life shape our understanding and our methods of communicating with and relating to others in our world. As a post-abortive mother, who has spent over 20 years as an educator, with many of those years as a teacher, I find it natural to consider learning styles when seeking more effective ways to share the pro-life message. Learning styles are an integral part of working to share the “culture of life” in every community. Because I am an African-American woman, I am especially interested in reaching the people of my communities.
It has been said that African-Americans have a particular learning style that causes them to be global learners in that they want to see the big picture and not necessarily all the small details. They also tend to be better writers than speakers because they excel in non-verbal communication. In addition, they tend to use approximations frequently and focus better on a person rather than an inanimate object (Wilson, 2004). One of the characteristics of our African-American culture is an emphasis on visual learning. We are particularly impacted by visual imagery.
For many years, I have been an outspoken advocate for the unborn child, because in a culture of abortion, the child is like a slave. The new civil rights movement of our time is the pro-life movement, and as I seek to preserve the dream of my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and of my father, Rev. A.D. King (Martin’s brother), I ask the question, “How can the dream survive if we murder the children?” I grew up seeing these two great men fight for the equal rights of their people.
But equality is not something you can see. What you can see are people. My uncle knew that the ugly reality of segregation had to be seen visually by the American public. He therefore organized events at which the eyes of the media could broadcast the way our people were treated when water hoses and dogs were unleashed on their peaceful marches. People responded to those images, not simply to abstract concepts of “segregation” and “equality.”
Likewise, people – and especially African Americans – respond to the disturbing images of aborted children. Sure, some people get angry when we show them. But everyone who fights injustice has to be ready to pay a price. My uncle did, and so did my Dad. So does everyone who has the courage to show the ugly reality of abortion. Don’t be afraid to do so. Many people are grateful. As a woman who has had two abortions, I am grateful that the truth is being shown, so that others can avoid this pain in the first place.
