Log In Sign Up

Pain meds. to fetus before abortion


Abortion Debate

This forum is for Abortion debate only. If you are highly sensitive about this topic, read at your own discretion.

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

View Poll Results: Pain med for fetus
Yes 18 90.00%
No 2 10.00%
unsure 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Abortion Debate LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
March 2nd, 2007, 06:01 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ohio
Posts: 3,657
http://www.lifenews.com/state2136.html

what do you think about this?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
March 2nd, 2007, 06:12 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
Quote:
Under the bill, the state would provide information for women telling them that, by 20 weeks into the pregnancy, the "unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."[/b]
Research tells us it is 24 weeks . And, even then, there is argument over whether penetration into the cortex even means pain at that time.

Those 4 weeks make a BIG difference. The number of abortions at 20/21 vs 24 is crucial. This bill should not pass. It is a lie.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #3  
March 2nd, 2007, 08:45 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why wouldn't you want the pain meds "just in case" what harm is it doing?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
March 2nd, 2007, 08:49 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Under the bill, the state would provide information for women telling them that, by 20 weeks into the pregnancy, the "unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."[/b]
Research tells us it is 24 weeks . And, even then, there is argument over whether penetration into the cortex even means pain at that time.

Those 4 weeks make a BIG difference. The number of abortions at 20/21 vs 24 is crucial. This bill should not pass. It is a lie.
[/b][/quote]
I think them telling people the above quote would be an absolute lie.. ITA

That said.

Quote:
The bill offers the mother a chance to give the baby anesthesia and pro-life lawmakers hope it reduces abortions.[/b]
I voted yes because I would want the pregnant woman to have that opportunity to use it if it helps her do it and feel better about it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
March 2nd, 2007, 08:55 AM
*Firefly*'s Avatar Girlfriend and Blogger
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 24,398
I voted yes because if the life is going to be lost anyway then it makes no difference...
__________________
Cause I know my weakness, know my voice,
Now I believe in grace and choice,
And I know perhaps my heart is farce,
But I’ll be born without a mask
~ Babel, Mumford & Sons



Reply With Quote
  #7  
March 2nd, 2007, 01:30 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ohio
Posts: 3,657
I Think the Bill is complete BS but I do feel that any woman should have the option to give the fetus pain meds. just in case or to make the woman feel better. To say things that aren't proven is just unethical in my opinion.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #8  
March 2nd, 2007, 01:37 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
If (and I mean IF) a woman was to be given a completely nonbiased choice, complete with medically written (that is, by doctors with no agenda) information concerning the possibility of fetal pain and the risks to the woman that fetal pain relief brings (yes, there are risks to the mother with this procedure), THEN AND ONLY THEN would I agree with this.

BUT!

Every single one of these emphasized statements is not included in this bill or the bills that have come before congress and in other states. The bills use words like "unborn child" and say lies about pain, development of the nervous system, consciousness, etc. They require information be written in certain wording which is not medical at all. The risks are downplayed.

It's abortion politics. It sucks, but that is the way it is until we find someone who truly feels this law is needed for the right reasons and is willing to separate themselves from abortion politics to write a law that is both factual and gives free and unbiased choice. Frankly, I can't see that happening for a good long time.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #9  
March 2nd, 2007, 01:50 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
We also must ask ourselves what a law like this would do for abortion availability. If the woman has the right to ask (and she probably would if the wording is like it is in these laws), then the providers must provide. Prices and people trained in the procedure (not to mention people willing to perform the procedure despite the added risk to the mother) would put more burden on the already huge availability problem.

It's the like last law that came before congress. It required wording that went something like "pain felt while being killed" (in regards to the fetus). It was something crazy like that which 1) assumed the fetus felt actual pain 2 ) assumed the fetus could interpret that pain and 3) used loaded language like "killed" and "torn apart" things like that.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #10  
March 2nd, 2007, 02:00 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
I 100% agree with you Sara.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
March 2nd, 2007, 02:02 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
This was the wording doctors were required to use under the bill that was shot down in congress:

"Congress finds that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain even though you receive a pain-reducing drug."

Doctors who fail to read the statement could be fined $100,000 to $250,000. States are also required to revoke or suspend their medical licenses, or face the loss of Medicaid funding.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #12  
March 2nd, 2007, 02:04 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
And that is incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
March 2nd, 2007, 02:09 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
The bill was so weird. It opened with terms like "unborn child" then, when citing medical evidence, the bill's language changed to "fetus" and then the statement the DOCTORS were required to read reverted back to "unborn child" and "killing" etc.

The whole statement:

Quote:
`You are considering having an abortion of an unborn child who will have developed, at the time of the abortion, approximately XX weeks after fertilization. The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence that by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. Congress finds that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-reducing drug or drugs. Under the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005, you have the option of choosing to have anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug or drugs administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child if you so desire. The purpose of administering such drug or drugs would be to reduce or eliminate the capacity of the unborn child to experience pain during the abortion procedure. In some cases, there may be some additional risk to you associated with administering such a drug.'.[/b]
So that is EXACTLY what they were going to be told they HAD to say. Then, there is this blurb after:

Quote:
`(ii) DESCRIPTION OF RISKS- After making the statement required under clause (i), the abortion provider may provide the woman involved with his or her best medical judgment on the risks of administering such anesthesia or analgesic, if any, and the costs associated therewith.[/b]
So, the law says you MUST tell them about fetal pain (which is not yet proven) YET you can choose whether or not tell the woman the risks involved!!! risks which are proven!!!
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #14  
March 2nd, 2007, 02:16 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a


How can the politicans even pass a law forcing the medical field to do anything that goes against their ethics?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
March 2nd, 2007, 02:18 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
Quote:


How can the politicans even pass a law forcing the medical field to do anything that goes against their ethics?[/b]

It was messy. One of the doctors the repiblicans were trumping the whole time ended up cracking under examination and admitting that the whole thing (fetal pain at 20 weeks) was impossible. Then he went on to say that there is a possibility there is no pain until right before birth/late third trimester.

Then the bill died. A well deserved death, IMO.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #16  
March 3rd, 2007, 01:20 PM
Willowkarr's Avatar Coupon Blogger
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gloversville, NY
Posts: 2,995
I, personally, don't like the idea of abortions. However, it is every woman's right to chose this, whether I agree or not. Why should she not be allowed to chose to give her baby a pain med before she kills it either? Yes, I know I am a tough one to figure out, I still am unsure of what "label" I am.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
March 3rd, 2007, 03:29 PM
Acadia's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,377
Okay ... this is what jumped out at me. You know, aside from what's been said already.

Quote:
The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.[/b]
Excuse me? Congress has determined that by X developmental age, the fetus/unborn child/baby/whatever-you-personally-want-to-call-it can experience pain?

Since when does a majority vote determine what is and is not scientific fact!?

Yes, yes, I know, we've already been over how that specific wording is a lie or at the least unproven. But that is mighty presumptive of Congress to assume that they are in collectively in control of factual information. What's next? Congress has determined that the Earth's orbit is in fact circular instead of elliptical? That's a bit more extreme (the elliptical orbit thing having effectively been proven) but that presumptiveness (and the apparent belief that we will not question it!) is frightening. Even if they didn't mean it that way, the wording reveals something about how the writer views the powers of Congress.
__________________
<div align="center">




</div>
Reply With Quote
  #19  
March 4th, 2007, 12:12 PM
Acadia's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,377
Quote:
I guess I don't understand why the word "killing" is incorrect? Abortion does kill the fetus/unborn child/baby/whatever, so that isn't really an incorrect usage of the word...[/b]
Because it starts by using terms like "fetus", "embryo", "elective abortion", etc. Then later, when addressing doctors relaying this (false) info to patients the usage switches to "unborn child", "killed", "torn apart", etc. It isn't technically an incorrect usage but it's not a scientific usage; in fact, it's probably a veiled attempt to dissuade the woman from having an abortion at all, or at the very least, to make her feel like a murderer.
__________________
<div align="center">




</div>
Reply With Quote
  #20  
March 4th, 2007, 03:07 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I guess I don't understand why the word "killing" is incorrect? Abortion does kill the fetus/unborn child/baby/whatever, so that isn't really an incorrect usage of the word...[/b]
Because killing is a judgement. Aborting is the proper term.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0