The Pseudo-Science behind pro-abortion critiques of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
By Dave Andrusko
Alex Wagner
Wagner uses as a starting point a piece written for Salon by Katie McDonough that appeared August 7. It’s long but her thesis is simple: “[T]he fetus at 20 weeks can’t actually feel anything at all. Which is to say, the fundamental justification for these laws is a really big, really popular lie.” (Emphasis mine).
Let me make two important points. Dr. Anne Davis of Columbia University Medical Center, who performs late abortions, was the voice of authority. (She was joined by McDonough and Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America but Davis is the MEDICAL authority.)
Not only does she (surprise, surprise) dismiss the well-documented fact that the unborn experiences pain by 20 weeks, Davis goes on to suggest there is a gap of “weeks” between 20 weeks and the point at which the child can REALLY experience pain.
Why is that important? As we have discussed many times, most pro-abortionists make noises about there being an end-point somewhere beyond which abortion is not appropriate. But they never find one.
I haven’t read Davis’s work on fetal pain, but it sounds very much like she belongs to the school of thought that maintains that it is not until at least 28 weeks that the child can experience pain, if not later—if not until after birth!
Moreover, Wagner, an inarticulate “progressive,” talks about the “pseudoscience” of fetal pain and the need to increase (presumably scientific) “literacy.” In this regard pro-lifers agree.
Let’s actually look at the research, especially the work done in the last decade. The conventional wisdom–that the cortex is central to pain–has been challenged, indeed, arguably replaced. Research has demonstrated children born without a higher brain structures (‘decorticate’ patients) are capable of experiencing pain and also other conscious behaviors.
Just guessing, of course, but I believe Ms. Wagner would not include that research into the curriculum intended to enhance “literacy” about fetal pain.
One other item. The inter-related themes in the panel discussion (and in most pro-abortion huddles) is (a) that it’s a lie to say the unborn can experience pain at 20 weeks; (b) everything else that pro-lifers (and those who are neutral parties) say about abortion’s impact on post-aborted women is a lie; and (c) is (in McDonough’s words) “part of a larger comprehensive national strategy to eradicate women’s access to legal abortions.”
We’ve already discussed (a), and (b) is exactly what you would expect from people who claim pro-lifers are “anti-science” yet whose own science is frozen in time. (It is hugely amusing to hear Davis talk about how sonograms have “contributed to confusion.” How so? The picture of the baby in the womb is “very detailed.” Talk about Luddites!)
What about (c)? The irony here is that the whole group couldn’t say often enough that the pain-capable unborn child protection act is part of a “larger comprehensive national strategy” But their counteroffensive is the very epitome of a comprehensive strategy.
They aren’t opposing just the pain-capable unborn child protection act. They oppose notification, waiting periods, informed consent laws/counseling, and—as suggested by Davis—a requirement that a mother have a chance (if she chooses) to see an ultrasound of her unborn baby before she makes that decision for death.
I forgot to mention that the pro-abortion laundry list of pro-life “lies” includes everything crisis pregnancy centers do for women, which was also brought up by the panel. Which is a good place to end.
CPCs—like everything else that gives women in crisis a chance to rethink a decision to abort—MUST be a lie. Why?
Because to acknowledge, however obliquely, that pro-lifers have honest motives and sound science behind them would mean pro-abortionists would have to look themselves in the mirror.
Source: NRLC News
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment