TV Abortion Footage Stirs Debate in Britain

[demdave]

LONDON (Reuters) - A British filmmaker behind what is being billed as the first pictures of an abortion ever shown on television defended her documentary Monday as a powerful stimulus to moral debate.



"My Fetus," to be broadcast by Britain's Channel 4 on Tuesday, includes footage of an abortion being conducted on a woman who is four weeks pregnant, as well as images of aborted fetuses that are 10, 11 and 21 weeks old.


"It's still a subject that is taboo and not discussed openly and I wanted to kick-start debate by allowing both sides of the argument to actually look at what an abortion is," 34-year-old filmmaker Julia Black told Reuters.


"Abortion is a legal procedure in Britain and is the world's most common surgical procedure, so I thought we should look at the images and then carry on the debate." Channel 4 said it was sensitive to criticism that the program might offend and shock, but insisted it was about educating and feeding debate on an issue that has sparked strong emotions across Europe and the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=597&u=/nm/20040419/tv_nm/britain_abortion_dc_1&printer=1

on edit...OOPPPS

[soleft]

1. Demdave you didn't post a link

[demdave]

2. Thanks for the catch.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. eh

I've seen abortions every week on tv. The religious channels run them late at night.

Great family entertainment!

[Must_B_Free]

4. this issue is a hot potatoe

I am pro life, but also anti-enforcement. I support the concept that life is something we revere. I am also anti- death penalty, but pro euthenasia, if it is for dignified passing.

I don't think that women should have a choice out of convenience.

I think 9 months of suffering is worth a life. Worst case, give the baby away.

I don't think there should be any penalties though. I can't see penalizing anyone for what they do in this area. If you did it, just knowing what you did is bad enough.

[DaveSZ]

6. I've seen footage of an abortion

It's pretty err disgusting, and I'd never have one if I were a woman. Still it's still not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body.

:)

[David__77]

9. There are a lot of disgusting medical procedures, I suppose.

I think it's good to publicize information on reproductive health. Women should understand their bodies. The important thing is that, until birth, a fetus is indeed a part of a woman's physiology, part of her body.

[David__77]

7. How can you say that?

If abortion is murder, then how can "just knowing" you did it be enough of a punishment and a deterrent? If the millions of abortions taking place annually are actually murders, then shouldn't the government step in and protect against that?

I will say that I don't advocate that position, because I don't think that fetuses are children and I don't think that abortion is murder. But I'm curious how someone that did think so would oppose prosecuting against it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. what does this statement mean?

I don't think that women should have a choice out of convenience.

If it's not convientent it's not a choice, it's a necessity.

Choice is choice is choice. No strings attached and no qualifiers.

[TheWraith]

16. What does YOUR statement mean?

It makes no sense. I believe Must_B_Free was saying that it shouldn't be an option if your only excuse for needing one was that you were careless with your reproductive organs, which I agree with. If you want responsibility for your body, you have to start by taking it seriously. "I forgot" isn't a good reason for an abortion.

[fudge stripe cookays]

19. Some of us are not careless....

We've had birth control FAIL. It happens, more than you think.

By careless, do you mean that we were actually daring to HAVE SEX? Geez! Alert the media! Women aren't supposed to have sex just because we WANT to!

Are we still supposed to go through 9 months of hell, then birth, then futures as penniless single mothers as punishment for having sex?

[dolo amber]

25. Granted, it doesn't happen that often,

and even less often does it happen twice. But I have 2 children, ages 13 (who was born when I was 23 and single) and 3 (also single).

Was on the pill with the first, and the shot with the second.

It would've been MUCH more *convenient* to have the contraceptives work properly. Much less convenient to have to make the decision whether or not to abort. (Fortunately I found out about both of them when almost 3 months pregnant, so that wasn't really an issue.) I think it's absurd to call what I'm sure is a heartbreaking decision for 99% of women who go through it a matter of *convenience*...:eyes:

[ant]

33. what's more

It's no one's goddamn business WHY a woman would choose to have an abortion.

People need to get over themselves. Women do not need to justify their personal life choices to anyone but themselves.

[Libertarialoon]

10. Deaths

While I too think abortion is a horrific practice, the facts are that a woman is far more likely to die in childbirth than due to abortion. If you outlaw abortion as a viable option, more women will die as a result. OTOH, many fewer children will die if abortion is outlawed.

There is simply no simple answer to this question.

[Rationality]

57. Consider those born and tossed in the trash

Unfortunately it still happens even today, but imagine how much more of that will happen if it was outlawed...

[Lindacooks]

13. It's an issue of privacy!

Geez, when are people going to figure this out? The issue is called 'body integrity', which means that all alive, born, living, breathing, non-womb-contained human beings have control over what happens to their own body.

And btw, ALL medical procedures are disturbing and just plain icky to look at. Do you enjoy looking at open heart surgery if you aren't a doctor or nurse?

If you don't like abortions, don't have them. Otherwise, mind your own business.

[murielm99]

35. You dont think women chould have a choice out of

convience?

If you cut off my reproductive choices, can I cut off yours?

[fob]

84. What about spontaneous abortions and miscarriages?

Under the fetus is a person with rights bill, the woman can be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter or negligent homicide depending on the circumstances, right? Does that make sense? If that's "ok", what's the problem with the woman making a proactive decison?

[qb]

5. Okay, fine. If we're going to kick-start debates, then let's also show

close-ups of children getting blown up in Iraq, death-row inmates being executed in all their eye-popping, smoking-hair glory, clubbing baby seals, drive-by shootings, ...

[dawn]

58. Good one...I totally agree.

[TahitiNut]

65. And lets show a girl dying of a coat-hanger abortion, too.

Lets get plenty of close-ups.

[ant]

11. the horror! graphic pictures inside!

Look! A graphic photo of a 12 week abortion!! Click at your own risk!

That poor 35 ml of tissue! How it must of suffered!

:eyes:


Let them show it - at the very least people will realize those gruesome pro-life posters are nothing but bullshit.

[histohoney]

12. I work in a anatomical Pathology lab,

thats NOT what it looks like. Thats a demonstration of the amount of materials, not the materials themselves.

[PlanetBev]

14. Seen police photos of women who have died from illegal abortions

Not a pretty sight. The most famous is the 28 year old woman who was left alone to die in a Connecticut motel room in 1964. This picture alone was a powerful tool that helped to reform those horrible anti-abortion laws.

[Scout]

17. Gerri Santoro eom

[fudge stripe cookays]

22. Thanks Scout.

I was born in '66, and had never seen the picture.

I just did an internet search. That poor woman. I'm leaving for DC Saturday morning, and I'm even more angry than ever.

[histohoney]

20. I've seen

Lots of dead people,(Hello we all start out working in the morgue)
I am not arguing abortions, just stating facts.
If your going to show something and call it fact, it should be.
I work in this field, I am going to notice those things.

[ant]

15. obviously

The photo isn't sharp enough to know whether or not it's the materials themselves.

The point is it's usually only the lifers who put out their images, and those images are almost always misleading.

[histohoney]

23. If you really want to show

what one looks like for real try a reputable medical school sight and look in the anatomical section.
I am not trying to get your goat, but truth is truth, it's not all that neat.
Weather a women chooses either way she should have as many truthful medical facts as she can get her hands on. Thats all I want, not cartooned, sugar coated and white washed. Not horrified and FXed for scares either. Just the way it really is so she makes the right decision, and a half truth either way short changes her.

[ant]

26. eh?

Like I said, I was offering a contrast to what's normally shown/imagined. I feel like you're trying to make a point here but you're sort of dancing around it and not being very clear. If you've got something you want to say (or, more likely, show), please feel free to do so.

Again, I showed a legitimate picture of the amount of material we're talking about and I did so as a contrast to the typical (pro-life) images people see/imagine, which are practically mutilated five year olds. (Again, hyperbole - please do not feel a need to point out that they are not actually mutilated five year olds.)

And of course it's not all that "neat." I don't believe I ever claimed it was.

[histohoney]

36. Belive me

If I have something to say I say it. I do not need the "help" of others. But how nice of you to feel you have the power to endow me.


I am not dancing around, I am saying women need factual information. It is WRONG to present ANYTHING altered (either to look scarier or more sanitized) to make points for either side. TRUTH should not be dressed up or down by either side to sway a womens decision.

NO facts concerning a MEDICAL procedure need ever be minimalized or dramatized to fit someone elses agenda either way. I am sick about the way both sides feel free to play fast and lose with medical knowledge and with others lives.

BE STRIGHT with people. Have a little faith in the ability of a women to make up her own mind when she is given all the truthful, undoctered facts.

I am not going to "Dance" with medical science to try to get some women to act or think my way, she needs the truth for what ever decision SHE needs to make. I don't look at people as an agenda, but try to remember EVERONE, is just that one women looking for her answer.

[histohoney]

39. As for a post

I am not that computer savvy. I would have one of my students (Yea I am an old 40+ with a blinking VCR) do it, but this isn't their topic but mine.
Try UTMB. University of Texas Medical Branch.edu
or any of the other Medical schools sites.
Look under
Anatomical Pathology
OB-GYN
D&C
just to get you started.
Not to take away from the topic at hand, this is also a great way to learn about many different fields of medicine and maybe to help you make good informed medical choices (From hang nails to neurosurgery) about your health in the future.

[ant]

49. I don't understand your point

Maybe you're not being deliberately obtuse, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I did look at that website, by the way, but could not find what you're describing - there wasn't an ob-gyn link under anatomical pathology.

If you think I don't know the details of what abortions do, you're wrong. Hell, I've even read Haskell's first paper on D&X, so really, thanks for the info, but I got it covered.

If you're trying to make the point that sometimes aborted fetuses look like little people, point granted. I'm sure there are some abortions where that is the case, but they are in the minority and therefore using those images is misleading.

And finally, I don't see how you're computer savvy enough to post on an internet board but not computer savvy enough to just cut and paste a link.

[histohoney]

67. My problem

is with how glib you are, "the Horror" "That poor 35 ml of tissue, how it must of suffered".

No I do not think that the fetal tissued suffered.

I have seen an 11 year old girl forced to give birth by her mother. (Not because mom was against abortion, but just mad at her daughter. Seems mommy's boyfriend raped this poor girl and mommy blamed that child because mom picked up a pervert.)
That poor little girl should have never been forced to term, she had NO idea what was going on,and she could suffer serious side effects in the future.

I have had to count the pills a 20yr old vomited up after we gave her epic ac. She tried to kill herself. Every body played down the idea of abortions to her,"It's no big deal, just goo. You wont feel a thing. It's just tissue, it's not important." Two weeks later she's with us in the ER. No one was straight with her about the procedure(It can be very noise, and just plan scary.) No one thought to just let her cry over it. (Her, friends told her she must be crazy if she felt some guilt over it, that normal people just get over it.)

I would never want to make this choice for some one else, I would hope what ever choice is made, (Case by case, person by person)that the up most care is given to what we say to people.

This is not a joking matter. I don't appreciate EITHER side making light, or using scare tactics. I don't like garish use of photos (you say it wasn't touched up OK, still that not a very usually representation.)

You may be OK making jokes and bing glib, Iam not. You have your way, I have mine.(Yes I joke about other things, just not something like this.)
No I do not know how to cut and paste, but I can make and chemical cocktail to beat the band. Sorry you can't understand that.
Have a good life.

[ant]

68. and out of the blue...

So let's see - you are no longer taking issue with the fact that my picture isn't 110% accurate and are now saying that what really offends you, even though you didn't mention it before, is the fact that I was making fun of pro-life tactics.

(you say it wasn't touched up OK, still that not a very usually representation.)

Obviously. The picture was obviously of a low quality. I didn't feel a need to state that it didn't show detail since simply looking at it reveals that it doesn't show detail.

And yeah, "I say" it wasn't touched up, but even if you don't believe me and think the picture was touched up, it's a pretty lousy job. If I was going to try to mislead people with a photoshopped image at least give me enough credit to assume that I wouldn't use one of such terrible quality. It's obvious the photo doesn't show detail. I would be a complete moron to try and claim otherwise, which is why I didn't, which is why it's odd that you seemed to take issue with it, even though now you don't and really it's a whole other issue that's truly bothering you, namely:

You may be OK making jokes and bing glib, Iam not. You have your way, I have mine.(Yes I joke about other things, just not something like this.)

I wasn't joking about abortion itself. I was sarcastically mocking pro-life scare tactics. It was more like social satire, really. If that's not your thing, fine, I don't particularly care, but at least be clear on what I was and wasn't mocking.

Of course, I should point out that just as it is not your place to tell me whether or not I can have an abortion it is not your place to tell me how I should and shouldn't feel or think about abortion. For all you know I've had one, and it wasn't a big deal for me. Or maybe it was and humor's how I deal with it. Or maybe I haven't had one but my sister did. You have no clue who you're talking to, do you?

Every woman will have her own thoughts on this, and every woman's thoughts are equally valid to her. This idea that women must suffer or regret or be emotionally troubled by their choices in order for the choice to be socially acceptable is just sick. Yes, I'm sure this is a decision many women agonize over, but I also now for a fact that not all of them do, and that's perfectly fine, too.

[histohoney]

73. Nor do YOU

know me. Have I had an abortion? You don't know either. How do you know that striving to have this procedure treated truthfully, and compassionately is not MY way of dealing with it? You have no idea what I have or have not dealt with in my personal or professional life.

As I stated with another at first I thought the Picture was of a cartoon like quality, and with your remarks I at first thought it was some kind of joke. (HINT, they don't usually put the tissue in little silver cups and have it bright red, there is usually turbidity and darker tissue.)As I am not clear to you, you have not been clear at all times to me. We think too differently (NO, I am not saying my way of thinking is superior, just polar opposites to yours) such is life. You don't have to come around to my way of thinking but I don't have to come around to yours either.

No I am not telling you how to think,what to say or do but on a chat board I get to say what I think too. You don't care what I think, fine, mine and everybody else's life will go on.

I never said every women must suffer mentally from her discussion, some do not and go on with out a hitch. Many do suffer from this decision and are made to feel ashamed and stupid by others for their feeling. Some are exploited in to feeling even worse by the the other side. I don't like either approach. Thats just me, and since you don't care as you've said, why bother typing at all?

Out of the blue? Sorry but at some point in every day I go home and have a life.

Have a safe journey.

[ant]

76. projecting

Have I had an abortion? You don't know either.

That's right, I don't, which is why I'm not telling you how you should feel/think about abortion. If you don't like it, don't have one - I don't particularly care, and it's not my business anyway.

How do you know that striving to have this procedure treated truthfully, and compassionately is not MY way of dealing with it?

And did I tell you not to treat it that way? I believe my last post was in response to YOU telling ME what I should and shouldn't say, not vice-versa.

You don't have to come around to my way of thinking but I don't have to come around to yours either.

And I haven't demanded that, have I? You misunderstood the picture, I explained it, and now your upset over my use of humor. You're the one who keeps acting like there's an issue here, accusing me of various things. I'm just defending/explaining myself.

Thats just me, and since you don't care as you've said, why bother typing at all?

What I actually said was that I don't care whether or not you get or appreciate my humor. Did you misunderstand that, too, or are you deliberately misrepresenting my words?

Out of the blue? Sorry but at some point in every day I go home and have a life.

I meant your new accusation was out of the blue. Up until your last post it was all about the accuracy. Then, "out of the blue," the issue became my lack of compassion and how I mocked the lifers.

Will you come up with something new in your next post? I can't wait to find out...

[histohoney]

79. Like I said

we think to different. NickB79 got my problem with the photo quickly and we could discuss it. No Drama, no pit bull action.

Yes new ideas and thoughts do come to my mind as I go along in life, I had no idea that was bad.

How could I keep you from saying anything? I just said I don't like glib remarks. State what YOU want,'ll state what I want.I still think(Remember, I am thinking this thought, I am not holding my hand over your mouth.), that we all need to careful about what we say and do. Thats my evil ugly thought. I don't like (again it's an preference not an action over you physically) people making it scarier than it is,nor making it seem like nothing at all or being glib about it. (the procedure.) I don't read to much anti-abortion materials so I don't know how your mocking them. I don't like the picture for the reasons stated. I probable never will. Guess what? I don't have to

I don't care to tell others how to feel emotionally about it, thats the individuals right. I just don't like (LIKE not an action on you)
for either side to try and guilt a women either way.

And NO, you did not make it clear to me, just like I don't make things clear to you. We just can NOT communicate well with each other. I am not assessing blame here, like I said we are just to far apart. It happens.
For me it's been 24hrs.
Since I am not trying to hold your fingers, I bet you can post any thing you like.
Me, I'll say we could not meet minds. For me the END
Have a good journey.

[ant]

82. let me try again

Honestly, let's put the hostility aside for a moment because I really want to make sure you get this point, so please read me without the defensiveness.

I don't like (again it's an preference not an action over you physically) people making it scarier than it is,nor making it seem like nothing at all or being glib about it. (the procedure.)

The obvious question is: how scary is it, and who decides?

My point was that this will depend on the woman. Abortion may be a heavy issue for you, but it may not be for others, so when you say "don't make it seem scarier/easier than it is" what you're really saying is "don't make it seem scarier/easier than I think it is."

You haven't defined an objective point of reference, because you can't, because there is none. The experience of abortion is inherently subjective, and different women will react differently. Saying that a certain treatment of or reaction to the subject is automatically wrong risks alienating many women and discounting their experiences.

Abortion is a difficult thing for some women, but it is also not difficult for others. We should be willing to accept all viewpoints and experiences in the debate, even if they are not in synch with our own.

[ant]

43. then you seem to have misunderstood...

...because I did not deliberately alter that photo - nor did the site's owner - in order to show a cleaner version of the facts. It is what it is - 35 ml of tissue resulting from an aspiration abortion.

I realize that the fetus can have little toes and fingers by week 12, and I suspect that's what you were referring to in your first response. (Was it? I don't know...see, you weren't that direct about it and so I'm left to assume that this is what you were talking about.) If so, while I have no problem showing those types of photos, I (A) doubt those body parts remain adorable and intact during an abortion and (B) feel they are often showed not to present facts but to manipulate.

Because here's a fact:
Over half of all abortions are performed in the first 9 weeks and almost 80% are performed by week 10. (source - pdf file)

If we want to show pictures of typical abortions, then, the picture I showed is perfectly accurate. Over half of all abortions are performed on fetuses that have not yet developed all those nice human features and are at most about an inch long. What you have is more likely to look like a tiny alien than a tiny person, and it is less likely to sway people, which is why that's not what people like to show.

Of course, I'm sure we're all smart enough to know that what the fetus looks like doesn't really matter. It's not as if aesthetics determine ethics, after all. If your argument for/against abortion is truly rational and solid it shouldn't change just because you've seen a picture.

[NickB79]

31. At only 12 weeks development and aborted through aspiration

Would there be anything recognizable as a human fetus recovered? Aspirating is not gentle on soft tissue such as this, so this could well be the actual material removed, just poorly photographed and homogenized by the method of abortion.

[histohoney]

48. In some

not all cases, there can be more tan to dark tan tissue shown, also it can be "frothy or spongy"

We used to "dump" (The term used when separating solid tissue from liquids (formalin, blood, thin mucus, ect..)) tissue from an abortion provider in NM. I would not go as far as to say rarely and not constantly certainly, but many times the small budding like tissues of hands and fingers or maybe feet could be seen.

I guess my problem (and thank you for asking in a more open manner) is that the sample is so RED, like a cartoon look. I truly believe even fresh the tissue would have more turbidity and dark tan areas.

I just don't want any one misguide. This is a MEDICAL procedure, not a game. Real life facts for real life choices, long and short term.

Maybe I get a little over board, but I just don't like people not getting all the facts they need.

[Roaming]

18. This woman is not arguing that abortion should be outlawed; she

wants a debate on its moral implications. I think it's good this is being shown, to help any woman (who doesn't already know) what an abortion entails. Maybe (hopefully) it will change many women's minds so they don't go through with it. I agree with prior poster wholeheartedly--nine months of discomfort/inconvenience is worth a human life.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fudge stripe cookays]

24. Putting your life on hold....and wellness visits to a doctor.

Start adding up the cost.

Most people want HEALTHY babies.

That requires a doctor's supervision, pre-natal vitamins (at least $26.00 a bottle times 9-- a fortune to poor women), and at least 1 doctor visit a month.

That's at LEAST $10 for a co-pay per month (if not more) x 9 = $90.

And God forbid you require 3 to 6 months of complete bedrest because it's a problem pregnancy. What if you're poor and you're working for f&*(ing McDonald's, hmmmmm? Or you have a retail job that requires standing for 8 hours and you can't? What then? You're fucked, that's what. You're OUT OF A JOB AND OUT ON THE STREET!

Thanks for agreeing, slinkerwink.

[slinkerwink]

28. thanks----my message got deleted though

it bothers me when people view abortion too simplistically.

[fudge stripe cookays]

30. I saw that.

Made me sad. I missed seeing your doggie!

Why do they hate your freedom? ;)

[slinkerwink]

32. I want the freedom to decide my own medical decisions without

deranged fundies pushing their beliefs on me.

[fudge stripe cookays]

34. Me too!

I'm now in a wonderful monogamous, snipped relationship, so I have nothing to worry about, plus I'll be nearing menopause before too long.

Now I'm fighting for the girls who have no idea what life was like before Roe vs. Wade. I'm still young compared to the generation before me, but I've heard enough horror stories from them about friends they had who died to give me nightmares for life.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen it. I just found it:
http://www.sapphireblue.com/25years/

[Roaming]

61. But there are so many resources available to women who

are poor and pregnant -- mother/baby wellness programs, etc., of all types both governmental and secular. Never before in our nation's history has a woman had so many resources / safety nets available to help her with a pregnancy. And so many people who want to adopt, if a woman wanted to go that route.

[fudge stripe cookays]

63. I wouldn't trust a "governmental" wellness program very far right now...

It's the same as a religious wellness program.

"Have this kid, or you'll:

a) go to hell
b) develop breast cancer

No woman should be forced to give birth to a child she does not want. Men have been able to follow their dreams throughout history. Women have always been forced to put their own needs second to everyone else's.

No more. We are human beings with needs and wants just like anyone else. Boyfriends and lovers can "choose" to desert a woman when she becomes pregnant. Women should be able to "choose" whether their lives remain on a relatively even keel or drags them into the hell of poverty and unwanted motherhood.

If you have never experienced the terror of a positive pregnancy test when you don't want it, your opinion should have no weight in this decision.

[ant]

29. knock yourself out

nine months of discomfort/inconvenience is worth a human life.

And you should feel perfectly free to go ahead and martyr yourself all you want. I don't think anyone is going to stand in the way of your voluntary suffering.

As for me, I think I'll CHOOSE to be "selfish" and not go through the (mere, meaningless, so small she must be spoiled to complain about it) "discomfort/inconvenience" for someone else.

To each her own. God bless America.

[Roaming]

60. Yes, the choice still exists, both in Britain and the here in the U.S.

What I'm saying is that it's good that women have all the facts before they go through with an abortion; so they'll really understand what is happening to the baby, and to themselves. Hopefully that will help eliminate many women from using abortion as a means of birth control.

[ant]

69. is this a problem?

...this "women using abortion as a form of birth control" thing? I hear it a lot, just wondering if there's any actual data to back it up.

According to Guttmacher (it's a pdf), only 8% of women seeking abortion were NOT using birth control, which means 92% of them were. (There are other numbers in there breaking down the 92% into when and how effectively, but that's the macro breakdown.) Are you saying that these women use abortion as a back-up birth control, something they rely on in addition to their pills and condoms? If so, how would you know that? What leads you to conclude this?

Maybe it's not that these women are using abortion as a method of birth control but that they are not using their actual birth control properly? Those not using birth control at all are only 8%, which seems to be a pretty small number compared to the constant mention I hear of women using abortion as a form of birth control.

so they'll really understand what is happening to the baby, and to themselves.

And what is happening, exactly, to each and every one of these women, and how would you know? Since doctors tend to explain procedures before performing them I'm not sure what information it is you feel these women are lacking.

[Roaming]

72. There's a lot more to an abortion than just the medical procedure

part of it; I think it's important that women know all the possible consequences of having one (namely the emotional impact), and that there are other options available to them. There are so many choices available besides abortion.

With all the new technology available, particularly better and better ultrasounds and intrauterine photography, not to mention the wealth of knowledge we now have about fetal development, women are directly confronted with the life that's growing inside them. I think just seeing pictures like this could make a woman think twice before aborting her baby.

Many women experience severe regret years into the future, especially after they go on to have wanted children. Knowing all the possible consequences is important before undergoing such a life-changing procedure.

[ant]

74. so you admit intent to manipulate?

I think it's important that women know all the possible consequences of having one (namely the emotional impact)

And how do you know they don't?

And what, exactly, is this emotional impact? Is it the same for every woman? Is there research on the subject?

Do you also feel it's important that women know all the possible consequences of childbirth, namely the emotional impact?

For instance,
Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as documented in numerous methodologically sound prospective studies in the United States and in European countries. Comprehensive reviews of this literature have recently been performed and confirm this conclusion. The incidence of diagnosed psychiatric illness and hospitalization is considerably lower following abortion than following childbirth… Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment."
-from "The Myth of the Abortion Trauma Syndrome." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268(15): 2078-2079, as cited here, emphasis mine.

And would you favor similar warnings and counseling for adoption?

While there has been little scientific research about the psychological consequences of adoption, researchers speculate that it is likely "that the psychological risks for adoption are higher for women than those for abortion because they reflect different types of stress. Stress associated with abortion is acute stress, typically ending with the procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, however, the stress may be chronic for women who continue to worry about the fate of the child."
-Russo, NF. "Psychological Aspects of Unwanted Pregnancy and Its Resolution." In J.D. Butler and D.F. Walbert (eds.), Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (4th Ed., pp. 593-626). New York: Facts on File, 1992, from the same website as above, again, emphasis mine

Wow. It seems every choice carries potential physical and emotional problems. Are you as concerned about adoption and childbirth as you are about abortion?

With all the new technology available, particularly better and better ultrasounds and intrauterine photography, not to mention the wealth of knowledge we now have about fetal development, women are directly confronted with the life that's growing inside them. I think just seeing pictures like this could make a woman think twice before aborting her baby.

So then, as I stated in my subject line, your intent is to manipulate. You want to influence her decision in a way that suits you, so you show her certain pictures in order to do just that.

Newsflash: most women know what abortion is. The fact that they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're stupid or misinformed, it just means they don't agree with you and choose abortion over other options. You may not like that, but it's not really any of your business, is it?

And again, if you want to talk facts the fact is most abortions take place early in the first trimester when the "life inside them" is not the cute little human-looking creature this intent to manipulate requires. It is therefore dishonest and a lie to show a woman who is 6 weeks pregant a picture of a 15 week fetus.

Many women experience severe regret years into the future, especially after they go on to have wanted children. Knowing all the possible consequences is important before undergoing such a life-changing procedure.

This is simply not true. Please cite me the research - from a credible medical journal - that supports this assertion of yours.

Here's evidence to the contrary:

American Psychological Association. "APA Research Review Finds No Evidence of 'Post-Abortion Syndrome' But Research Studies on Psychological Effects of Abortion Inconclusive." Press Release, January 18, 1989.

Adler, NE, et al. "Psychological Responses After Abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.

Adler, NE, et al. "Psychological Factors in Abortion: A Review." American Psychologist, 1992, 47(10): 1194-1204.

Russo, NF & KL Zierk. "Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992, 23(4): 269-280.

Russo, NF. "Psychological Aspects of Unwanted Pregnancy and Its Resolution." In J.D. Butler and D.F. Walbert (eds.), Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (4th Ed., pp. 593-626). New York: Facts on File, 1992.

Stotland, N. "The Myth of the Abortion Trauma Syndrome." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268(15): 2078-2079.

David, HP. "Comment: Post-Abortion Trauma." Abortion Review Incorporating Abortion Research Notes, Spring, 1996, 59: 1-3.

Russo, NF & AJ Dabul. "The Relationship of Abortion to Well-Being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?" Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997, 28(1): 1-9.

[Roaming]

75. How do I know they don't know the consequences? I don't -- and

neither do you. That's why every woman should have the opportunity to know all the facts, both sides of the issue. There are lots of resources available to help them do this before they make their final decision.

As for documented psychological problems after abortion, they do exist:

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ABORTION

Researchers investigating post-abortion reactions report only one positive emotion: relief. This emotion is understandable, especially in light of the fact that the majority of aborting women report feeling under intense pressure to "get it over with."8,23

Temporary feelings of relief are frequently followed by a period psychiatrists identify as emotional "paralysis," or post-abortion "numbness."18 Like shell-shocked soldiers, these aborted women are unable to express or even feel their own emotions. Their focus is primarily on having survived the ordeal, and they are at least temporarily out of touch with their feelings.

Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions.3,23,35 Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.3

In one study of 500 aborted women, researchers found that 50 percent expressed negative feelings, and up to 10 percent were classified as having developed "serious psychiatric complications."10

Thirty to fifty percent of aborted women report experiencing sexual dysfunctions, of both short and long duration, beginning immediately after their abortions.23,8 These problems may include one or more of the following: loss of pleasure from intercourse, increased pain, an aversion to sex and/or males in general, or the development of a promiscuous life-style.

Up to 33 percent of aborted women develop an intense longing to become pregnant again in order to "make up" for the lost pregnancy, with 18 percent succeeding within one year of the abortion.23,22,29 Unfortunately, many women who succeed at obtaining their "wanted" replacement pregnancies discover that the same problems which pressured them into having their first abortion still exist, and so they end up feeling "forced" into yet another abortion.

In a study of teenage abortion patients, half suffered a worsening of psychosocial functioning within 7 months after the abortion. The immediate impact appeared to be greatest on the patients who were under 17 years of age and for those with previous psychosocial problems. Symptoms included: self-reproach, depression, social regression, withdrawal, obsession with need to become pregnant again, and hasty marriages. 29

The best available data indicates that on average there is a five to ten year period of denial during which a woman who was traumatized by her abortion will repress her feelings.23,24 During this time, the woman may go to great lengths to avoid people, situations, or events which she associates with her abortion and she may even become vocally defensive of abortion in order to convince others, and herself, that she made the right choice and is satisfied with the outcome. In reality, these women who are subsequently identified as having been severely traumatized, have failed to reach a true state of "closure" with regard to their experiences.

Repressed feelings of any sort can result in psychological and behavioral difficulties which exhibit themselves in other areas of one's life. An increasing number of counselors are reporting that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the causative factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems.13,17

Other women who would otherwise appear to have been satisfied with their abortion experience, are reported to enter into emotional crisis decades later with the onset of menopause or after their youngest child leaves home.6,21

Numerous researchers have reported that postabortion crises are often precipitated by the anniversary date of the abortion or the unachieved "due date."23,29 These emotional crises may appear to be inexplicable and short-lived, occurring for many years until a connection is finally established during counseling sessions.

A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group.5

Women who have undergone post-abortion counseling report over 100 major reactions to abortion. Among the most frequently reported are: depression, loss of self-esteem, self-destructive behavior, sleep disorders, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, chronic problems with relationships, dramatic personality changes, anxiety attacks, guilt and remorse, difficulty grieving, increased tendency toward violence, chronic crying, difficulty concentrating, flashbacks, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities and people, and difficulty bonding with later children.23,24

Among the most worrisome of these reactions is the increase of self-destructive behavior among aborted women. In a survey of over 100 women who had suffered from post-abortion trauma, fully 80 percent expressed feelings of "self-hatred." In the same study, 49 percent reported drug abuse and 39 percent began to use or increased their use of alcohol. Approximately 14 percent described themselves as having become "addicted" or "alcoholic" after their abortions. In addition, 60 percent reported suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times.24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. "Abortion in Hawaii", Family Planning Perspectives (Winter 1973) 5(1):Table 8.

2. "Annual Ectopic Totals Rose Steadily in 1970's But Mortality Fell", Family Planning Perspectives (1983) vol.15,p.85.

3. Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn.(1980),vol.87,p1115-1122.

4. Atrash, et.al., "Ectopic Pregnancy in the United States, 1970-1983" MMRW, Center for Disease Control, vol.35, no.2ss9.29ss.

5. Badgley,et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law(Ottawa:Supply and Services,1977) pp.313-321.

6. Cavenar, et.al., "Psychiatric Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortions", North Carolina Medical Journal (1978),vol.39.

7. Chung, et.al. Effects of Induced Abortion on Subsequent Reproductive Function and Pregnancy Outcome, University of Hawaii (Honolulu, 1981).

8. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978).

9. Frank, et.al., "Induced Abortion Operations and Their Early Sequelae", Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners (April 1985), vol.35,no.73,pp175-180.

10. Friedman,et.al.,"The Decision-Making Process and the Outcome of Therapeutic Abortion", American Journal of Psychiatry (December 12, 1974), vol.131,pp1332-1337.

11. Grimes and Cates, "Abortion: Methods and Complications", Human Reproduction, 2nd ed., 796-813.

12. Harlap and Davies, "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion: Complications and Outcome of Pregnancy and Labor", American Journal of Epidemiology (1975), vol.102,no.3.

13. Heath,"Psychiatry and Abortion",Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal (1971), vol.16, pp55-63)

14. Hilgers, "The Medical Hazards of Legally Induced Abortion," in Hilgers and Horan, eds., Abortion and Social Justice(New York: Sheed and Ward, 1972).

15. Hogue,"Impact of Abortion on Subsequent Fecundity", Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (March 1986), vol.13,no.1.

16. Hogue, Cates and Tietze, "Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review", Family Planning Perspectives (May-June 1983),vol.15, no.3.

17. Kent, et al., "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Autumn-Winter 1981), vol.13,nos.3-4.

18. Kent, et.al., "Emotional Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion: A Comparative Study", presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychiatric Association at Saskatoon, Sept. 1977.

19. Lembrych, "Fertility Problems Following Aborted First Pregnancy",eds.Hilgers, et.al., New Perspectives on Human Abortion (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, 1981).

20. Levin, et.al., "Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion", American Journal of Public Health (1982), vol.72,p253.

21. Mattinson, "The Effects of Abortion on a Marriage",1985 Abortion: Medical Progress and Social Implications,(Ciba Foundation Symposium, London: Pitman, 1985).

22. Pare and Raven,"Follow-up of Patients Referred for Termination of Pregnancy",The Lancet(1970) vol.1,pp635-638.

23. Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987).

24. Reardon,"Criteria for the Identification of High Risk Abortion Patients: Analysis of An In-Depth Survey of 100 Aborted Women", Presented at the 1987 Paper Session of the Association for Interdisciplinary Research, Denver.

25. Russel, "Sexual Activity and Its Consequences in the Teenager", Clinics in Ob&Gyn, (Dec. 1974). vol.1,no.3,pp683-698.

26. Schulz, et.al., "Measures to Prevent Cervical Injury During Suction Curettage Abortion", The Lancet (May 28, 1983),pp1182-1184.

27. Stallworthy, "Legal Abortion, A Critical Assessment of Its Risks", The Lancet (December 4, 1971) pp1245-1249.

28. Wadhera, "Legal Abortion Among Teens, 1974-1978", Canadian Medical Association Journal (June 1980), vol.122,pp1386-1389.

29. Wallerstein,et.al., "Psychosocial Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion in Young Unmarried Women", Archives of General Psychiatry (1972) vol.27.

30. Wilke, Abortion: Questions and Answers,(Cincinnati, Hayes Publishing Co., 1985).

31. Wilke, Handbook on Abortion, (Cincinnati, Hayes Publishing Co., 1979).

32. Wren, "Cervical Incompetence--Aetiology and Management", Medical Journal of Australia (December 29, 1973), vol.60.

33. Wynn and Wynn, "Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Born Subsequently", British Medical Journal (March 3, 1973), and Foundation for Education and Research in Child Bearing (London, 1972).

34. United States Supreme Court, Roe v Wade, U.S. Reports, October Term, 1972, 149,163.

35. Zimmerman, Passage Through Abortion (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977).

[ant]

77. LOL

Do you even check things before you cut and paste? The most recent study you gave me is from 1987, and several of those articles are even pre-RvW or right around the time of the abortion debate, when sexism and efforts to counter legalized abortion were all over the place. Aside from how that context might've influenced these studies, how can you possibly compare the effects of illegal abortion 30 years ago to what happens today? I notice, too, that none of the references to those article detail who was studied. Were these women who had illegal abortions or legal ones? Later-term abortions had for health reasons are likely to be more traumatic than those had by choice earlier on, after all.

Anyway,
As for documented psychological problems after abortion, they do exist:

I know they exist. I actually cited some for you in my last post, in case you missed it. Some of them even from the last decade, but edited here to explicitly point out that those have not been proven to come from abortion itself. Rather, they come from the circumstances surrounding the abortion. BIG difference.

What I actually asked for was evidence to support your claim that:

Many women experience severe regret years into the future, especially after they go on to have wanted children. Knowing all the possible consequences is important before undergoing such a life-changing procedure.

This may have been the case 30 years ago when abortion was still illegal, and no doubt the illegal nature of it all probably had something to do with this, but I have to see any evidence that abortion itself causes "severe regret years into the future, especially after {women} go on to have wanted children."

And no response on the point about manipulation, eh?

[Roaming]

80. I don't see how presenting a woman with all the possible

consequences of going through with a procedure is "manipulation" in the least. If I had any kind of procedure done, I would want to know both the possible good things and bad things that could happen to me if I went through with it.

Are you saying that films like the one which is the subject of this thread should not be shown because it is "manipulation?" Isn't that manipulation in and of itself by withholding certain information that could cause someone to change their mind?

Finally, I don't see why you are so quick to trash these studies (except for the fact you don't agree with them). They come from legitimate medical journals. Why shouldn't a woman be able to look at both the studies you presented, and these studies that show possible long-term psychological harm, and come to her own conclusions?

I stand by my opinion that if a woman is going to undergo the serious procedure of abortion, she owes it to herself to look at the consequences of doing this. I never said anyone should be FORCED to do this, but it should be OFFERED.

[ant]

81. should we teach creationist "science" in high schools, too?

I don't see how presenting a woman with all the possible consequences of going through with a procedure is "manipulation" in the least.

That's not what I said was manipulative. You said you wanted women to see certain images because it might make them not choose abortion. That is manipulation. Ideally, you present someone with pure, objective facts and have no interest in the outcome. You, however, made it quite clear that you wanted to sway the woman's opinion a certain way. That is what I said is manipulative.

If I had any kind of procedure done, I would want to know both the possible good things and bad things that could happen to me if I went through with it.

As would I, but if I later found out my doctor had presented me with faulty data in a deliberate effort to influence my decision I would be, to put it mildly, pretty fucking pissed.

Are you saying that films like the one which is the subject of this thread should not be shown because it is "manipulation?"

No, I'm not saying that at all. I have no idea what the filmmaker's intent is so I really can't comment. I'm only talking about you, because you are the one who admitted s/he wanted to sway women's choices a particular way.

Finally, I don't see why you are so quick to trash these studies (except for the fact you don't agree with them).

Really? You don't see why I'm so quick to trash them, even though I explained it to you? Let me try again:

A study that uses only women from a group called "Women Exploited By Abortion" to study whether or not women are exploited by abortion is bad science. It is not a representative sample, and as my second post to you illustrated, the authors of these types of studies have admitted as much. If you study crazy women you will, not suprisingly, conclude that they are crazy.

This is bad science, pure and simple. It is bad data. Giving women this information and presenting it as legitimate research is manipulative and dishonest.

They come from legitimate medical journals. Why shouldn't a woman be able to look at both the studies you presented, and these studies that show possible long-term psychological harm, and come to her own conclusions?

Go ahead and show them to her, I don't have a problem with that. HOWEVER, make sure you tell her that they come from pro-life researchers who study specific groups of women at high risk of psychological harm and are therefore NOT representative of the general population. Make sure you are completely honest - and lies by omission count here - about the source and methodology.

I stand by my opinion that if a woman is going to undergo the serious procedure of abortion, she owes it to herself to look at the consequences of doing this. I never said anyone should be FORCED to do this, but it should be OFFERED.

And I don't believe I ever disagreed that women should be informed, I'm just saying they shouldn't be lied to or misinformed, which is what those studies aim to do.

[ant]

78. and by the way

ANYTHING by Reardon is crap. You can't cite studies that use limited, skewed groups, like he does. You can't, for instance, conduct a study on the emotional impact of abortion and study ONLY women from support groups formed by women suffering from abortion. That's like asking people at Alcoholics Anonymous if they've ever been to bars and then, because 100% say yes, concluding that going to bars causes alcoholism.

That is just bad, bad science, and it really hurts the credibility of whatever paper you were citing there. (Why no link, by the way - or am I to believe you wrote that all by yourself?)


Edited to add that the group I was thinking of that Reardon used was called WEBA - Women Exploited by Abortion. Yeah, what an unbiased group that is. :eyes:

More info:

• In her doctoral dissertation, "The Psycho-Social Aspects of Stress Following Abortion," Anne Catherine Speckhard chronicled how "abortion functions as a stressor" (Speckhard, 1985). However, she drew her conclusions from a subject pool of 30 women who "had high-stress abortion experiences" (Speckhard, 1985). As a result, in unpublished correspondence, her doctoral advisor clarified that Speckhard's "findings apply only to the 30 women who volunteered to participate in her study and to absolutely no one else" (Boss, 1986). In fact, there is little evidence to support the notion that abortion will lead to severe psychological sequelae among the general population of women. The American Psychological Association assembled an expert panel to review the evidence of psychological risks of abortion. This panel concluded "the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women. (Beckman, 1998).
  
  
• In his survey of women who had abortions, David Reardon found that 94 percent of his respondents experienced negative psychological effects (Reardon, 1987). However, he used a biased subject pool, drawing only from members of an anti-choice group called Women Exploited by Abortion (WEBA).
  
  
• To demonstrate that adolescents suffer greater psychological consequences after abortion than adults, Wanda Franz and David Reardon examine data from "a survey of organizations serving as support groups for women who have had negative reactions to abortion" (Franz & Reardon, 1992). They conclude by making generalizations about the effects of abortion on all adolescents, even though they derive their data from a non-representative, highly biased subject pool. In fact, a recent study of young women found that there is no evidence that abortion poses a threat to adolescents psychological well-being (Pope, 2001).
  
  
• In an unpublished but widely circulated paper, Terry Selby limits her discussion of "post-abortion trauma" to "a population of women who have presented themselves in a general mental health practice with a variety of presenting psychological and psycho-social issues" (Selby, 1984).
  
  
• In 1987, a white paper was presented to former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop describing the "problem" of PAS. In the paper, the writers admit, "the psychological risks of abortion are based mainly upon studies which have used small, uncontrolled and non-representative samples" and "cannot be predictive of national estimates" (Rue et al., 1987).
  

In July 1987, anti-choice President Ronald Reagan directed Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, also anti-choice; to produce a report on the health effects of induced abortion. Although the resulting draft report acknowledges that induced abortion is medically safe, it claims that there is insufficient evidence to determine the psychological effects of abortion (Koop, 1987). This conclusion overlooks an enormous body of evidence - more than 250 scientific studies - disproving the existence of PAS (Tyrer & Grimes, 1989). Furthermore, in closed meetings in 1988, Koop told representatives from several anti-abortion organizations that the risk of significant emotional problems following abortion was "minuscule" from a public health perspective (House Committee on Government Operations, 1989). Koop initially did not release his study, apparently because it did not support the anti-abortion position (Arthur, 1997). The report was finally made public on March 16, 1989.

Overall Conclusions by Health Experts

In 1989, a panel of experts assembled by the American Psychological Association concluded unanimously that legal abortion "does not create psychological hazards for most women undergoing the procedure." The panel noted that, since approximately 21 percent of all U.S. women have had an abortion, if severe emotional reactions were common there would be an epidemic of women seeking psychological treatment. There is no evidence of such an epidemic (Adler, 1989). Since 1989, there has been no significant change in this point of view.

-source - and please note dates of cited studies

[Scout]

83. "There are so many choices available besides abortion."

oh please, give me a freakin' break. what options?

I'm pregnant. My options are:
1) continue pregnancy to delivery
2) terminate pregnancy

I count two options ... what other options are you talking about?
If I not only don't want to have children, but don't care to be pregnant at all, I have only one option.

[Rationality]

56. So what?

You can't determine what every woman goes through during a pregnancy. Discourage it all you want but when you have the newborn unwanted by the mother what happens? Do you want to rely on big brother government to house the kid where he gets no attention and becomes a complete wretch? Or would you rather find his body in a plastic shopping bag in the Dumpster down the street? Or perhaps you'd rather find the baby dead inside the dead mother's womb with the coat hanger dangling on the side???

[Roaming]

85. No, it's not possible to know what every woman is going through;

All I am arguing is that a woman should know that she might regret her decision in the future, as many women do later on. Sometimes women may be pressured into having an abortion to please the father of the baby and then later wish they never had done it--that's a terrible pain to go through; I just want women to have the opportunity to make a decision that's as informed as possible.

Some will never doubt their decision, and their lives will go on just fine. My focus is on any woman who has ANY doubts, who perhaps is under pressure and isn't 100% sure, and MAY change her mind before it's too late. My heart goes out to the women who have to live the rest of their lives with the pain of regret.

[NashVegas]

64. Horsehockey

You don't go out of your way to start a national debate unless you want something changed. Otherwise, she'd be discussing it in a pub with her friends and not trying to shove it down peoples' throats.

[NMDemocraticRep]

27. Pro-Life Propaganda

This film was as bad as the fetuses-feel-pain doctor's testimony recently and the hand-from-the-womb picture that was going around the internet.

As a Democrat, the candidate should be firmly pro-abortion, at any time the woman choses. Insurance and/or tax-payer funded clinics must pay.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. 'Was'? How have you seen it already?

It's not being shown until Tuesday.

Note the director is pro-choice, and has herself had an abortion.

Can you tell us what the contents of the film are that are so bad?

[redqueen]

40. Your'e saying the claim that the fetus feels pain after 20 weeks is a lie?

Please do give a source if possible. Thanks.

[redqueen]

41. Seems as if it's true, and earler - 17 weeks

Pro-life view:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/ranalli.htm

The Emerging Reality of Fetal Pain in Late Abortion

Paul Ranalli, MD

The disturbing concept that an unborn child feels pain while being destroyed has once again entered the public conscience in England, when a pro-choice fetal researcher suggested that anesthesia should be given to comfort the fetus from pain from abortions as early as 17 weeks gestation.

Dr. Vivette Glover, a researcher at the Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital in London, told the British Broadcasting Corporation that, while it is unlikely the fetus can feel anything before 13 weeks, "after 26 weeks it is quite probable. 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".

Her comments triggered another round of controversy in England, one of the few places in the world where the subject has been honestly addressed. Although the medical and science establishment had largely ignored mounting evidence of the early development of fetal pain perception for the better part of a decade, it was Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that stuck a Working Party to study the issue three years ago. Their report, issued in October 1997, startled the world by recommending that the evidence for fetal pain perception in the late second trimester was convincing enough that the doomed fetus should be sedated with its own specific anaesthesia in all abortions performed from 24 weeks onward. The RCOG panel actually concluded that pain perception was not possible before 26 weeks, but they backed up their anaesthesia recommendation to 24 weeks because of the uncertainty of estimating gestational age. They also suggested an alternative to anaesthesia: stabbing the fetus through the heart and injecting potassium chloride, a technique they delicately stated, "that stops the heart rapidly". This had the double benefit, for the abortionist, of ensuring the delivery of a dead baby, since many abortions around 24-26 weeks are likely to result in a viable birth.

Dr. Glover’s statement was especially controversial for the RCOG, as it followed an apparent internal argument within the doctor’s group about how to deal with the findings of the 1997 report it commissioned. Media reports earlier this summer that the group would officially endorse a policy of fetal anaesthesia during late-term abortion were quickly denied, too quickly in the eyes of some observers. Dr. Glover’s public statement appears to have blown the lid off attempts to contain the controversy. Leaders in the field took issue with her statement, although their denials were carefully couched. Dr. Gillian Penney, of the Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, and Chairman of the Royal College’s induced abortion guideline group, claimed that, until 26 weeks, "the fetus would not be capable of experiencing what we would perceive as pain" . Professor Peter Hepper, of the fetal behaviour research center at Queen’s University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, said there was not enough evidence to say that the unborn child experienced pain before 26 weeks, but he allowed that it was "better to be safe than sorry".
--------

Pro-Choice view:

http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm53.asp

The Science and Politics of Fetal Pain
By Dr Stuart Derbyshire
4/9/00

The following paper was written in 1996, in response to the debate about whether fetuses feel pain. Comments or questions about it can be sent / e-mailed to the author at the addresses below.

The Science and Politics of Fetal pain - Doing the Wrong Thing?


In 1987, the Lancet published an article unequivocally demonstrating that neonates receiving fentanyl anaesthesia in preparation for surgery had improved clinical outcome as compared with neonates who only received nitrous oxide and curare (1). This research, and subsequent studies, (2)(3) led to a major reconsideration of analgesic practice with regard to neonates. In 1992, theNew England Journalran an editorial calling on clinicians to 'Do the Right Thing' concluding that 'it is our responsibility to treat pain in neonates and infants as effectively as we do in other patients'(4). Since then it has become common place to assume that neonates feel pain (5)(6). The assumption that neonates feel pain has led inevitably to speculation that the fetus may also experience pain (7). While the discussion about neonatal pain remained largely confined to the pages of medical texts, the discussion around fetal pain has attracted the attention of several major British newspapers and led the British parliament to discuss the curtailing of abortion (8)(9). Given the sensitivity of this issue in the United States (10), it is surely only a matter of time before this issue crosses the Atlantic. This article evaluates the evidence for and against fetal and neonatal pain and considers the implications for current clinical practice, abortion procedure and the contemporary understanding of pain.

The Evidence that the Fetus or Neonate can Feel Pain

Anand's seminal work on the use of fentanyl with neonates undergoing surgery demonstrated that the major hormonal response to invasive practice could be significantly reduced with fentanyl added to the anaesthetic regimen. Specifically it was demonstrated that plasma adrenalin, noradrenaline, glucagon, aldosterone, corticosterone, 11-deoxycorticosterone and 11-deoxycortisol levels were significantly greater in the non-fentanyl group than the fentanyl group up to 24 hours after surgery. The reduction of the 'stress response' to surgery by fentanyl was considered to be responsible for the improved clinical outcome of the fentanyl group who required less post-surgical ventilatory support and had reduced circulatory or metabolic complications. Anand and his colleagues later advanced these important and impressive findings in a report indicating that neonates receiving deep anaesthesia during surgery had improved post-operative morbidity compared with those neonates who received lighter anaesthesia. The reduced hormonal response and improved clinical outcome following invasive surgery in conjunction with anaesthetics used for pain relief in adults led naturally to the conclusion that the neonate could feel pain and that this pain needed to be controlled.

Dovetailing with the work of Anand and his colleagues was that of Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald has examined the developing nervous system of the rat and human fetus with special regard to the developmental neurobiology of pain (11)(12)(13). Fitzgerald has reviewed the biological development of the fetus and examined the possibility of fetal pain at each stage of development. The impression that a fetus experiences sensation is apparent at 7.5 weeks gestation when reflex responses to somatic stimuli begin. At this point touching the peri-oral region results in a contralateral bending of the head. The palms of the hands become sensitive to stroking at 10.5 weeks and the rest of the body and hindlimbs become sensitive at approximately 13.5 weeks. Shortly after the development of sensitivity, repeated skin stimulation results in hyperexcitability and a generalized movement of all limbs. This hyperexcitability has been interpreted as evidence for the presence of a functional pain system, reflecting an immature but intact pain response with early hypersensitivity to stimulation (14). This is not a view which is widely accepted, however, and is rejected by Fitzgerald herself. Prior to 26 weeks the thalamocortical fibres have not yet penetrated the cortical plate (15), and it seems unlikely, therefore, that the cortical structures considered necessary for pain are responding to noxious stimulation. The evidence for cortical involvement post 26 weeks is enhanced by behavioral studies which have demonstrated that the response to noxious stimulation becomes more focused and organized and can be better discriminated from other distress responses after 26 weeks (16). As with the hormonal response to surgery, the behavioral responses can be reduced with the use of appropriate anaesthetic adding support to the suggestion that these responses are related to pain perception (17).

Having established that the necessary neurobiology for pain is in place after 26 weeks and that behavioral responses to noxious stimulation are present in very premature babies of approximately 26 weeks gestation, it is logical to suggest that a fetus of 26 weeks gestation or more will launch a similar hormonal response to invasive practice as that observed in the neonate undergoing surgery. In 1994 Giannakoulopoulos and his colleagues from the Queen Charlottes Hospital in London, England successfully demonstrated that intrauterine needling to obtain a blood sample from fetuses of 20-34 weeks gestation resulted in a hormonal stress response analogous to that seen by Anand et al seven years previously (18). They demonstrated that needling the innervated intra-abdominal portion of the umbilical vein rather than the placental cord, which is not innervated, resulted in increased cortisol and []-endorphin concentrations in fetal plasma. If this group can now demonstrate that the hormonal and neural 'stress response' can be prevented with the use of appropriate anesthetics then they will have mirrored the criteria which have led to the widespread acceptance of 'neonatal pain'.

[slinkerwink]

42. and plants feel pain when we pluck them, but we eat them anyway

:shrug:

[redqueen]

44. Shrug?

I don't know of many people that grieve for years because they lost a plant. Nor any that agonize for years because they can't have one.

*sigh*

on edit: comparing an unborn child to a plant... you've got to recognize how damaging this kind of 'argument' is to the 'pro choice' side.

[AlienGirl]

66. Right to humane treatment vs. right to life

First off, the "plants feel pain" thing has been debunked--plants don't have a nervous system with which to feel pain, pleasure, or anything else. If you hook an EEG up to a plate of Jello you'll get readings that look like brain waves, but that doesn't mean Jello thinks.

The central issue here is whether the ability to feel pain creates an absolute right to life. I would say that the majority opinion is that it doesn't--the abiliy to feel pain only creates a right to humane treatment. It is acknowledged that animals feel pain, and so industries that rely on killing and using animals have developed ways to minimize the pain during the kill process, yet no one in government is saying that all animal killing must be outlawed. I don't see any reason people can't take the same stance with regard to fetal pain. Keep abortion safe and legal, but make sure it is also humane. The same bunch of us who are aready vegetarians for animal-rights reasons can simply choose to avoid having an abortion.

Tucker

[NMDemocraticRep]

45. Correct

Exactly.

[redqueen]

47. I just accepted this at first, but if you have a cite

for that claim please share it.

[ant]

52. here you go

The Science and Politics of Fetal Pain
Commentary by Dr Stuart Derbyshire

Here's the relevant part:

The undisputed discovery that the neonate and fetus launch a hormonal and neural response to invasive practice can not be considered definitive proof that there is an experience of pain. An experience implies that sensations have been interpreted in a conscious manner. Even when combined with the observations of behavior and improved clinical outcome when using anesthetics, there is still no proof that there is an experience of pain. Although all of these phenomena are associated with the notion of 'pain', none of them adequately describe or explain the phenomenological experience of 'pain'. These phenomena may exist independently of conscious experience. The relationship between the physiological responses of nociceptors, the hormonal and other responses of the CNS and the behavioral outcome of these changes to the psychological response has yet to be determined (19).

So I wouldn't say it's proof that the fetus doesn't feel pain, just that the proof some are offering to say that it does feel pain is bogus.

Although, I don't believe the fetus at 20 weeks has all the proper nerve/neural connections in place to actually feel pain. To feel pain the nerves all have to be connected together and to your brain, and if I remember correctly that's not really done in the fetus until 26 weeks or so. I'll have to check the articles I have at home, though, I could be wrong about this.

In any event, I'm not sure that it matters. If it does feel pain that can easily be solved with the use of anesthesia.

If your argument against abortion is based on fetal pain then that simple change would destroy your argument. If your argument is based on something else then I'm not sure why you're mentioning the pain issue at all.

[redqueen]

54. My argument is simply that the facts should not be this buried

on a topic that is so controversial, everything should be out in the open.

What sparked my interest in this subject was reading that doctors do, in fact use anaesthesia on fetuses during abortions. After trying to verify it and giving up, I wondered why it's such a secret.

I guess I also think that if the fetus is given anaesthesia, then the mother deciding whether to undergo the procedure should be made fully aware of the facts. Many women I know are against animal testing. I think if they knew their fetus might feel pain they'd at least request anaesthesia if not decide against the procedure altogether.

[ant]

70. what's buried? who's burying it?

Didn't we both manage to find information online? Aren't people able to go to their libraries and find medical articles on these issues? Hell, I just googled "fetal pain" and came up with a whole bunch of sites. Seems pretty out in the open to me.

As I said elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of abortions are had in the first trimester, before the issue of pain is relevant. In the few cases where it's a possibility I would agree that this is something doctors and their patients need to discuss. I would not agree, however, that doctors should be forced to use anesthesia. This is, ultimately, about the health of the woman, not the fetus.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. So, NMDemocraticRep, does your lack of reply

mean you haven't seen the film after all, and you are just guessing what's in it? What's the point of that?

[nolabels]

38. This thread sounds like it one of them gory accidents you see on.........

the freeway as you drive home. The rules set by a bunch of men to tell women how to operate their bodies belongs back in the dark ages.

If and when women get the say so of how men get to operate their penis, I will listen, until then, I say to each their own

"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.' - Tom Clancy "
http://www.miniluv.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=471

[slinkerwink]

55. good point...

[redqueen]

46. I hope it stirs debate here, too

Fetal Pain is an issue that many on the 'democratic' side would like to see go away. It's not going away.

All women considering having an abortion should be made aware of the controversy in the interest of full disclosure. Hiding this is wrong.



Former president Ronald Reagan said once, "When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they
often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing."(New York Times, Jan. 31, 1984) Many people
disputed this statement, but the president received a letter from many doctors, including two former
presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2 weeks later. The letter read:


February 13, 1984
President Ronald Reagan
The White House
Washington, DC


Mr. President:

As physicians, we, the undersigned, are pleased to associate
ourselves with you in drawing the attention of people across the
nation to the humanity and sensitivity of the human unborn.

That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the newborn of the
human species is a highly complex, sentient, functioning,
individual organism is established scientific fact. That the human
unborn and newly born do respond to stimuli is also established
beyond any reasonable doubt.

The ability to feel pain and 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
during, 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 fetology. Observations
of the fetal electrocardiogram and the increase in fetal movements
in saline abortions indicate 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."

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
under way."

Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human
fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground.

Respectfully,

Dr. Richard T. F. Schmidt, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of
Ob/Gyn, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH

Dr. Vincent Collins, Professor of Anesthesiology, Northwestern
University, University of Illinois Medical Center

Dr. John G. Masterson, Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Northwestern
University

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, F.A.C.O.G., Clinical Assistant Professor of
Ob/Gyn, Cornell University

Dr. Denis Cavanaugh, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University
of South Florida

Dr. Watson Bowes, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Material and Fetal
Medicine, University of North Carolina

Dr. Byron Oberst, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics,
University of Nebraska

Dr. Eugene Diamond, Professor of Pediatrics, Strict School of
Medicine, Chicago, IL

Dr. Thomas Potter, Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, New
Jersey Medical College

Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, Instructor of Clinical Pediatrics,
University of Pittsburgh

Dr. Melvin Thornton, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University
of Texas (San Antonio)

Dr. Norman Vernig, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University
of Minnesota (St. Paul)

Dr. Jerome Shen, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, St. Louis
University

Dr. Fred Hofmeister, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of
Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)

Dr. Matthew Bulfin, F.A.C.O.G., Lauderdale by the Sea, FL

Dr. Jay Arena, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Duke University

Dr. Herbert Nakata, Assistant Professor of Clinical Pediatrics,
University of Hawaii

Dr. Robert Polley, Clinical Instructor of Pediatrics, University
of Washington (Seattle)

Dr. David Foley, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin
(Milwaukee)

Dr. Anne Bannon, F.A.A.P., Former Chief of Pediatrics,
CityHospital (St. Louis)

Dr. John J. Brennan, Professor of Ob/Gyn, Medical College of
Wisconsin, (Milwaukee)

Dr. Walter F. Watts, Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn, Strict School
of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Dr. G. C. Tom Nabors, Assistant Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn,
Southwestern Medical College, Dallas, TX

Dr. Konald Prem, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Minnesota
(Minneapolis)

Dr. Alfred Derby, F.A.C.O.G., Spokane, WA

Dr. Bernie Pisani, F.A.C.O.G., President, NY State Medical
Society, Professor of Ob/Gyn, New York University

[justjones]

51. Point taken, but....

Did you notice how only one of the doctors who signed the letter is obviously female (Anne).

[redqueen]

53. I did not

However I should hope it wouldn't matter. The fact that this particular issue is so hidden from discussion makes me very suspicious of the pro-choice camp and I wish more female Obstetricians would weigh in on the matter.

It should not be this hard to find out during this day and age whether / at what point the fetus feels pain.

[dawn]

59. Just what we need...

I really don't understand the point of all of this. She wants to open up a debate so other people can talk about who wrong/right it is for a woman to have an abortion? Isn't this debate already open, and hasn't it been for, oh, thirty-odd-years?

[FemaleDemfromMass]

62. Abortion is legal and safe

I don't ever want to see doctors going back to alleyways for abortions. Women have the right to control their own bodies. I am for abortion, for convenience or otherwise. I am also for birth control for teenagers and condoms for teenagers.

I think women should stand up for themselves and have the amount of children they want, and can handle. This myth of women being baby makers has to stop. Women can choose to do whatever they want with their lives. They don't have to grow up, get married and have children. If they say the church tells them to, maybe they better look at what the church does to the kids.

[PylesMalfunction]

71. I hate the terms pro-life and pro-choice

I think it puts constraints on the positions by labeling them as such. My Mom is pro-life but she also is pro-choice. I have a sister with special needs and I honestly don't know if I could go through what my Mom has had to deal with. Having a child with special needs really makes you aware of how cruel the world really is. My Mom is of the opinion that no one ever knows what they'll do until they're faced with that decision - no matter how sure they think they are, they'll never know. But don't even get her started on people who run around judging people for having an abortion. Her view is - put your money and time where your mouth is. If you're against abortion, support people so they don't choose it. Take these young unwed mothers into your homes. Adopt a child with mental or physical deformities. Support funding for special education. Volunteer your time so that parents of a child with special needs can take some time to themselves. Do something - don't just wave coathangers or fetuses in jars!!!