If this were your baby, what would you do?

imagesCAIBIUVP

Lets say that you are pregnant with this fetus and you are not a pro lifer. But suppose the pro lifers were in fact in charge. What is the correct pro life position according to many pro life physicians?

“We should not kill an unborn baby to alleviate the suffering of the mother any more than we should kill her infant to alleviate her suffering.  Neither should we commit an abortion of a malformed fetus in order to prevent his or her suffering later in life.  Being handicapped is not a capital crime.  The intentional destruction of health is not compassionate and it is not healthcare, it is assault.  We must not be swayed from our pro-life ethic by emotional appeals that admittedly swell our eyes with tears.  Truth and compassion prevent us from this fatal compromise.” http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

Of course the flaw in the position of the Pro Life Physicians is that they have an opportunity to choose to save born babies or to let those already born babies die. These pro lifers choose to let those babies die. So they have a conundrum, they can force the birth of babies like these or they can spend their time trying to save real born babies. The amazing thing is that they choose to ignore the born life and force the life of these pitiful fetuses. I hope no one reading this will ever be put into a position where a pro life person is able by law to force them to carry a poor child like this to term. God help us all if such a law ever comes into being.

The lesson here is that pro lifers do not save life they simply force poor fetuses like this to live and ignore the life of real born babies and allow them to die.

Who should live, who should be allowed to die?

Each human on earth should have a fair and equal chance of living without state or government enforced limitations as to who is allowed to live and who shall die. Pro life laws choose to save fetuses at the cost of born life.  One life or potential life should not be placed above another and made more important by government or religion. One life should not be legislated to live when other lives are not. To do so is state forced death.

Our nations, states and religions should allow for a person’s personal limits and personal circumstances to be controlled by that person and not be dictated in such a manner that the natural course of events for that person is unavoidable death. There are certain actions that can only lead to death and our governments should not force citizens to take paths that will lead to their own destruction, especially if that path is obscure or circuitous.

There should be no governmental or religious laws that force citizens to follow paths that lead to certain death. The passage of “pro life” legislation is deceitful and leads to a path to death. Obscure or circuitous paths that lead to death are as wrong as direct paths. In fact if a government is intentionally choosing an obscure path then that governmental act is especially immoral because such laws fool people into supporting their own demise.

It is despotic for a government to choose to give preference to the fetal form of life over born life. Each human should have an equal and fair chance at life as determined by their own choices and circumstances. Born humans should not be forced to compete against fetuses to remain alive.

For example many people would agree that if a nation were to pass a law that required one group to die and for another to live based upon the size of that person then such a law would be immoral. Pro life laws demand the fetus be saved and no such laws exists to save born life.

And if a government passed a law that said that only people of a certain age should be saved from death, such a law would be immoral. Pro life laws demand that fetal life be saved, but no such law exists for born life.

And if a government defined life that is non-human to be more important than human life and that human life should be allowed to die to save non-human life, that would be immoral. And pro life laws that demand zygotes be saved at conception are laws that place non human life over human life.

Or if a government were to pass a law that obscure or probable life, that may or may not exist, be given preference over certain life, that too would be immoral. And pro life laws demand that zygotes/embryos/fetuses be saved, yet no similar law exists for born life.

If questionable life hidden from sight were to be saved and deemed more important than life that is observable that would be immoral. Yet that is what pro life laws do, they demand that hidden life, that may not even exist, be forced to live while born life that can be seen and touched is allowed to die.

And finally if a government determined that questionable or unprovable life were more important than unquestionable or established life then that would also be immoral and not fair to established life. Pro life laws require the “saving” of life that may or may not exist, yet no such law exists to save born life.

Government should not be allowed to determine whom will live and whom will die based upon arbitrary measures of human value.

Is there a logical function of government that requires it to pick and choose which life will live and which will die? No, there is no logical function of government that would allow it to protect one life or one form of life, if that determination will cause the death of another human.

Should governments protect the life of those who cannot protect themselves? Yes, if that protection can be proved not to lead to the death or harm of another human.

Should governments choose to save lives that cannot be proved to be capable of living if it causes the death of the living? No, because living people will die at the expense of unproved life.

There is of course a process that does not cause death that can be used by governments, charities and religions to protect life. Governments should enforce triage in situations that involve public money, charitable gifts and religious donations. And that function of triage should not be limited to current situations but should take into consideration anticipated future events and the limits of mankind related to his environment. For example people should save the most life possible taking into account future resources and anticipated events.

There is another purpose for governments. They should honestly inform their citizens of the number of deaths and the number of people saved and the cost and resources required to save life. That purpose should also include setting up and maintaining a method to save the most life possible with the resources available.

When does a government cause the death of one citizen while protecting the life of another? The short answer is that a government causes the death of one citizen when it commits to placing the importance of the life of a fetus above the life of born humans. How does that occur? It occurs by passing laws that require that one person be protected while at the same time ignoring its duty to protect all citizens equally.

 

 

Comments on Fetal Pain

Doctors On Fetal Pain has placed a number of citations on their site that they claim support their idea that there is proof of fetal pain. This post will explore some of the citations and the comments of the scientist that Doctors on Fetal Pain falsely claim support their cause. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fetal-Pain-The-Evidence-Feb-2013.pdf

Here are the citations and comments from the citations themselves that do not support the claim of Doctors on Fetal Pain.

1)Derbyshire SW, Foetal pain?Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 24:5 (2010) 647-655.
“ If a conceptual subjectivity is considered necessary for pain, however, then pain is not possible at any gestational age. Regardless of how pain is defined, it is clear that pain for conceptual beings is qualitatively different than pain for non-conceptual beings. It is therefore a mistake to draw an equivalence between foetal pain and pain in the older infant or adult.”

2) New England Journal of Medicine.317:21 (1987) 1321-1329.

“THE evaluation of pain in the human fetus and neonate is difficult because pain is generally defined as a subjective phenomenon.1 Early studies of neurologic development concluded that neonatal responses to painful stimuli were decorticate in nature and that perception or localization of pain was not present.2 Furthermore, because neonates may not have memories of painful experiences, they were not thought capable of interpreting pain in a manner similar to that of adults.3 4 5 On a theoretical basis, it was also argued that a high threshold of painful stimuli may be adaptive in protecting infants from pain during birth.6   “

3) Brain & Development. 22 (2000) 145-150.
“ Hence, it is not reasonable to speculate on the possible emotional experiences of pain in fetuses or premature babies. A clinically relevant aim is rather to avoid and/or treat any possibly noxious stimuli, and thereby prevent their potential adverse effects on the subsequent development.”

4) Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 19:4 (2008) 311-324.
“One cannot determine whether a fetus feels pain unless one has a conception of what pain is. There is a difference in opinion about what pain really is and that is also the difficulty in studies on fetal pain: we cannot simply ask the fetus whether or not it feels pain. We can only give indirect evidence of possible harmful effects of stressful stimuli on the developing fetus.”

5) Reproductive Health Matters . 16: 31Supp. (2008) 117-126.
“Raising the possibility of fetal pain continues as a tactic to undermine support for abortion in the US and the UK. This paper examines anatomical and psychological developments in the fetus to assess the possibility of fetal pain. Neurobiological features that develop at 7, 18 and 26 weeks gestation suggest an experience of pain in utero. Pain, however, cannot be inferred from these features because they are not informative about the state of consciousness of the fetus and cannot account for the content of any presumed pain experience. We may be confident the fetus does not experience pain because unique in utero neuroinhibitors and a lack of psychological development maintain unconsciousness and prevent conscious pain experience. Before an infant can experience sensations and emotions, the elements of experience must have their own independent existence in the infant’s mind. This is achieved after birth through discoveries made in action and in patterns of adjustment and interaction with a caregiver. Recommendations about anaesthetic practice with the fetus and the newborn or young infant should not focus on pain but on outcomes with obvious, and measurable, importance. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the health of the woman should guide anaesthetic practice. In the case of a wanted pregnancy, the survival and long-term health of both the woman and fetus should guide anaesthetic practice. In any case, current evidence does not support efforts to inform women of the potential for fetal pain. Any policy to mitigate fetal pain could expose women to inappropriate intervention, risk and distress.”

One can only guess that the Doctors on Fetal Pain did not read their citations or that they simply planned on taking ideas out of context. My guess is that they choose to take things out of context to intentionally mislead the various people that may read their page.

 

Senate to play games with women’s rights

Whitesonly_drinkingfountain

I sit here with sadness in the Senate Chambers waiting to testify on a bill that would allow businesses (hospitals) to determine if a woman has a right to abortion. The bill would transfer the power to determine who receives an abortion to non public hospital adminstrators. The decision of where abortion clinics are located would be in the hands of hospitals that would control abortions based on admitting privileges of doctors to their hospital. In effect businesses that are in competition with abortion clinics both politically and financially would determine the rights of women. The excuse for the bill is that it would be passed for health purposes. This is the same trick used when I was a child to keep blacks oppressed. For “health purposes” blacks were not allowed to drink from “white only” water fountains. In both instances the rights of one group were allowed to be controlled by a business or non-govermental  group. Not only are such laws limiting access to water and abortion immoral, they are also unconstitutional.

It is impossible to prove fetal pain.

Leave a reply

I am sitting in the Texas Legislative hearing on fetal pain. As I sit here I am viewing a Youtube video on surgery without anesthesia. In the video the herbalist is doing brain surgery with no pain killers of any type for his patient. The patient is clearly not feeling any pain whatsoever.

One would logically expect for the scalp, skull and brain to require anesthesia before surgery.

However, one cannot use logical thinking to understand pain. One may guess there is pain, but there may not be pain.
We all know that adults feel pain in most situations.And we want to believe fetuses feel pain. But there is no direct proof that there is pain in abortion.

And here in Texas there are 6 million people that do not have insurance and for that reason are at risk for pain. Why would a government allow 6 million of its adult citizens to undergo the risk of pain and yet worry so intensely about less than .1 percent of that number?
We must keep in mind that a State has a choice, it may choose to save its born citizens, children and babies or it may choose to save a fetus that cannot be proved to be alive or human. Pro life ideas do not save life, they simply trade a fetal life or pain for a born life or pain. Life and pain are not eliminated, they are simply traded between the fetus and the born citizen.

http://youtu.be/M5TRY1dCzsQ

The most important graph in the history of the abortion issue.

Leave a reply

#births

The above chart shows that after the legalization of the birth control “Pill” the number of births dropped by more than 1 million and then rebounded when abortion was legalized. The pro life movement did not control for the “Pill” and that lead to losing more than 1 million babies per year.
1)   Right now, 1.8 born babies, children and adults are dying each second and 1.4 abortions occur each second. There is no way to save all the lives that are being lost. Therefore we must choose whom to save and whom to let die. The fact is that the pro life movement chooses to save fetuses and to let born babies die. There are no lives saved. All that occurs is that born babies are sacrificed to save fetuses. In fact if a pro lifer chooses to spend 1 second saving fetuses, then in that second 1.8 born babies, children or adults will die, in a minute 108 born people will die and in 10 minutes 1080 born babies, children or adults will die.
According to the “Law of Charity” it is impossible to save all life, because everyone dies. For that reason, the only reasonable method of saving life is via triage.
2)   70 percent of conceptions die in the first trimester. Of those that die 60 percent die due to genetic flaws. What that means is that 42 percent of all conceptions cannot live as human beings and are rejected by the body and aborted, 30 percent live to birth and become born humans and 28 percent die for other reasons and also do not become born humans. What this shows is that there are more human conceptions that cannot produce human life than there are conceptions that lead to human life. For that reason, life at conception cannot be claimed to occur, because most of the time it is not life that will produce a living human.
3) Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, it is impossible to tell if the product of conception is human or alive. In fact most genotypes do not produce born human life. Of the life that is produced 42 percent cannot live as human life, 30 percent can and do become human life and 28 percent will die and also not become born human life. For this reason one cannot prove that there is life at conception, that the life is human or that the life will produce a human at birth.
4) The claim is made that 55,000,000 deaths have occurred due to abortion. However the graph that accompanies these sheets shows that in fact the pro life movement caused the loss of millions of births before Roe v Wade and that today the Pro Choice movement has saved millions of lives. The theory of the pro life movement is that zygotes are equal in all respects to born babies, however that is scientifically impossible as shown by the fact that a fetus cannot be proved to be human or alive.
And the idea that a zygote is a baby fails for multiple reasons. First if a zygote is a baby, then a sperm is also a baby at an earlier stage. The claim is that the zygote is a fully formed baby at an earlier stage due to the fact that it has all the DNA of a born human. However, the fact is that the DNA does not produce a born human most of the time. The sperm is a gamete which is an earlier stage of the zygote. If there were no sperm there would be no zygote. http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com/

The four types of human life, male diploid, female diploid, S….

Leave a reply

Sperm-egg[1]Human life is a continuous process that began 3.5 million years ago and continues today. There is no point at which one can say life begins. For that reason there are four types of humans. There are male diploid, female diploid, and the haploid humans, sperm and egg. Each of these types of human are alive, are in the cycle of life and will continue through the cycle. The diploid humans contain 46 chromosomes and the haploid humans contain 23 chromosomes. Both the diploid and haploid humans are fully alive and human.

The four types of human life all contain the appropriate chromosome number for their position in the cycle of life. Neither diploid humans nor haploid humans are more alive or human than the other. For that reason any claim of life beginning at conception is invalid. http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/Katalogteile/isbn3_8055/_78/_02/embryo_1.pdf

Wasting resources wastes life.

Leave a reply

The pro life movement is about to spend millions of dollars defending fetal heart beat bills originating in several states, These laws have no chance of surviving in court. Why not repeal the laws and use the money to save the lives of born citizens?—- Or just don’t defend the laws.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112787/fetal-heartbeat-abortion-laws-dangerous-even-if-judges-reject-them

Why cause the death of your uninsured citizens? Why not spend the money saving life? What a waste!

 

 

 

Personhood is impossible to prove.

Leave a reply

The entire pro life movement is based upon the false idea that “life at conception” can be proved and is true. The fact is that it is impossible to prove that a life exists until birth.

Why? Because until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, one cannot tell if the product of conception is alive or is comprised of enough human DNA to live as a human. The “genotype” is the “code” or “plan” that is used to build a human and to say that it must “express” simply means that it must build a structure or “phenotype” based upon the  DNA. The DNA of the genotype is quite complex and must go through a process of its own. The DNA must produce RNA that then must produce the phenotype in the form of structures comprised of proteins or other necessary products such as enzymes. All of the parts of the human body are the phenotypes of human life. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology/Genes/Gene_expression

 

Some say that because the DNA of the sperm fuses with the DNA of the egg, that is proof that a human life has been created. The problem with that idea is that most zygotes do not produce human life. Most die in the first trimester. Some say that there is “life at conception” because the DNA of the egg and sperm fuse at that point and that it is therefore the first instance of a new human life. While it is in fact one of the stages of human life it is not the first. In fact the first stage of human life was the stage that created the first human and the last stage will be the stage that produces the last living human. All other stages are intermediate. For example if the claim is that the zygote is an earlier stage of a baby and is therefore the same as a baby, then the gametes are an earlier stage of the baby as well. If the zygote is a baby, then the sperm is a baby and the cell in meiosis is also a baby and so on all the way back to the first human.

It is a fact that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype we cannot tell if the product of conception is alive or human. Why can’t we tell if the phenotype is human or not human enough to live as a human? The main reason is that there is no accessible means to tell if the DNA will in fact express the correct phenotype or if the phenotype is alive at any instant or if it is capable of living until birth. For example there is no “green light” we can view that says everything is “OK” and this is a human or this is alive. There is not even a “yellow light” or “red light” that says caution or stop, this is dead. One cannot even do genetic testing to tell if the fetus is alive or comprised of foolproof DNA because the DNA must “replicate”, not once, but billions of times before there is a birth. And each of the replications will produce DNA that may or may not yield a different “expression” of the parent DNA. For example the DNA of the zygote will divide and produce essentially the same DNA as its parent, either copy can produce an entire baby such that we may have twins, triplets or other multiple births. Or the zygote can simply progress to the next stage and produce a single child. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation There is no “indicator light” that tells in advance that this zygote will produce twins or simply a single child. And past that stage, the DNA produces other DNA billions of times and each copy of the DNA can have a different “expression” of its code than the DNA of the parent. For example the early DNA can produce different parts of the body or different proteins or enzymes despite the fact that the outward structure of the DNA and chromosomes will appear to not have changed. None of the DNA has a switch or indicator or any outward sign that says this will produce a living human baby that will live until birth.
Of course we can look at sonograms, or genetic test and determine if things “might” be compatible with life. For example we can look at a sonogram and see what appears to be a healthy living baby. However, many of those babies will in fact die before birth. There is no “green light” showing that a fetus is perfect and can live to birth. And because many do not live, we cannot assume that they will all live. In fact we must assume that most zygotes will not live.

The possible reasons that a fetus cannot live are numerous. For example there are several processes that must occur before birth. The fetal heart, that is different from the heart of a born baby, must change its blood flow pattern by the closing of valves. If the valves are not genetically perfect, then the fetus may die. The fetus must change its respiration from using the oxygen of the mother to using its own lungs. If that process has genetic flaws then the fetus may die. The fetus must change its digestive process and if that process is genetically flawed it may die. So there are numerous reasons that genetic testing and sonograms cannot show the status of the life of a fetus. A fetus could appear to be healthy and in fact only have seconds to live.
This is not to say that genetic tests and sonograms and other processes will not indicate that there is “life”, it simply means that there is no test that the life is sufficiently human that it will live to birth. And test may not be able to prove that the life will live, but the tests can prove that the fetus is dying or dead and will not live to birth. For example tests can show that the number of chromosomes is incorrect and will not produce a living baby even though it is alive at the time of the test. And tests can show that the fetus will not live past a certain time outside the womb. Further, genetic testing can show that the fetus is comprised of the correct genetic materials but still does not have a chance of living due to other problems. http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/Bio%20100/Bio%20100%20Lectures/genetics-%20human%20genetics/human.htm

These precepts are born out in the record of miscarriages that occur in nature. In the first trimester 70 percent of conceptions die with 60 percent of those conceptions dying of genetic flaw. Of those surviving another 15% will die before birth. And of those that do make it to birth, another 1 percent will die. Then shortly after birth another percentage will die of undetected genetic flaw or disease. http://www.med.yale.edu/obgyn/kliman/placenta/articles/UpToDate.html
In conclusion, there is no “green light” or indicator of any type that is possible with any phenotype that must replicate its DNA billions of times without a flaw. And because DNA can “express” different phenotypes at different stages of life, one cannot tell if the DNA will produce the correct phenotype the next time it replicates. So even though the DNA looks sufficient in the first copying of the genetic code, it may not be sufficient in a following copy of the code. The point being that by looking at an earlier copy of the DNA code, one cannot tell what a future copy a billion copies later will produce. There is just no way to prove that a human life is living at conception, will live to birth or if the zygote will produce a DNA code that is compatible with human life that can live as a human.

The Nazis, the Pro Lifers and the 360 movie.

Leave a reply

NaziPriestsSaluteHitler

hitleratchurch

http://catholicarrogance.org/abortionundernazis.html

The pro life movement in the United States can be traced back to the pro life movement under the Nazi regimes. The connecting link is the Catholic Church. The false belief that there is life at conception is based upon the ideas of the Church that were falsely substantiated by the Nazis and used to force the birth of unwanted fetuses. The Nazi pro life laws are discussed in this source:   http://books.google.com/books?id=nW2aE5-rAMsC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=Nazi+laws+abortion&source=bl&ots=WSOIpXivcd&sig=S89QdubMLkbxxliCGZ0B9LxUXNY&hl=en&ei=FNvlTJHOKsOqlAe5vKjtCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=Nazi%20laws%20abortion&f=false

The pro life movement of the Nazi party made abortion a capital offense and attempted to force women to live as baby producing machines. The current world pro life movement is attempting to follow the Nazi example and force its ideas on the world.

The ideas of the Nazi movement were based upon the belief that the government should control all birth and that women have no right to their own bodies. These beliefs were adopted by the U.S. pro life movement and are being worked into legislation in various states such as North Dakota, Mississippi and Texas.
———-
The movie “360″ is based upon the Nazi propaganda trick of disassociating the pro life movement from its founding source. The movie implies that pro choice people are “Nazis” and implies that pro choice ideas lead to the death of millions of babies each year. The truth is that the Nazis were pro life and that the U.S. pro life movement is based upon the same ideas and facts as the Nazi pro life movement.

Scientific data shows that instead of a loss of life there has been an increase in life. Before the Roe v Wade ruling in the United States the number of births dropped by over a million per year and after Roe the number of birth increased by nearly 2 million per year.  So there was an increase in life caused by the pro choice movement not a loss of life. (see the graph on this site http://www.facebook.com/naturalabortionlaws.com. )
The Nazis were famous for using propaganda to further their cause. In fact there were movies starring Jewish actors that enticed the Jews to enter death camps and to believe the camps were instituted to further their “good” health. The pro life movement has used similar trickery with the “360″ movie that draws young people into a situation whereby they “believe” they are saving life when in fact they are causing death.

The evidence on this site and others is that the pro life movement does not save life, it causes death. And the deaths are partly attributable to the use of Nazi like propaganda tactics that include intentionally misleading our people, falsely claiming there is proven life at conception and attempting to pass laws that take away the right of citizens to their own bodies.