An abortion thread

"The SS claim that a 12-week fetus experiences pain has been acknowleged by the National Right to Life organization as being false."-------------------------------------------------------------

That does not mean they lied, they could just be mistaken. However, if the speed was manipulated and such, that would be most unfortunant and regrettable.

 

I have been unable to find any proof of that from the NRL organization anywhere on the Internet. Perhaps you will provide links.

Also, the only negative articles I can find on the Internet about Silent Scream are from pro-abortion groups and PP. Seems a little odd to me. One would think Christians and pro-lifers would want the truth to be told if Silent Scream is a really a scam, a fake, a big lie.

Interestingly, several National Right to Life State Chapters, here are two, have the film Silent Scream listed in their resource lists. I guess all of us believe the "lie" of Silent Scream and only Planned Parenthood has the real truth. :rolleyes:

http://www.artl.org/resources_video.html

http://nebraskartl.org/educational_materials.html

 

Petrel said--"Is so! I read a review article summarizing the results of multiple studies. Levonorgestrel at the levels given for emergency contraception does not affect implantation."

Apparently, the FDA has not read the nursing Jurnal. I am not sure why a nursing Jurnal would be authoritative anyhow.

FDA web site- "3. How does Plan B work?

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work."----------------------------------------------------------------------


Note- "Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). "----------------------------------------------------

That would be an abortion. But you are right, It would be a good thing if it did not do this.

[ October 27, 2005, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]

 

*sigh* Probably because the FDA studied higher dosages to see if they were harmful before agreeing to license, and higher dosages do effect implantation. However, the results of multiple studies show that the dose used for emergency contraception does not act in this manner. Additionally, these studies were not complete at the time of FDA licensing.

Correction: It's a medical journal, not a nursing journal. And gee, I dunno, why would a medical journal have any authority on medical matters? :rolleyes:

This review article from July 2004 shows that levonorgestrel is ineffective at preventing implantation by causing changes to the endometrium. Mifepristone (not approved in the US for emergency contraception at this time) at this dosage is borderline--it might cause sufficient change to prevent implantation in some cases. It appears the key mechanism for both of these is delay or prevention of ovulation, and then secondarily making the uterus much less friendly to sperm.

Gemzell-Danielsson, K.; Marions, L. "Mechanisms of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel when used for emergency contraception." Human Reproduction Update, 2004, 10, 341.

 

Johnv,

If the first thing to develop in an embryo IS the neural plate, which then signals the rest of the reporduction process to develop, and it contains more neuro conductors then than it does at any other time during development - I question the theory that the fetus cannot experience pain.

If anything, it sounds to me, from what the Washington site states, the child might be MORE sensitive to pain at that time than at any other time in its life.

 

Petrel, don't be so contrery. You are the one who said a nursing journal, not me. You seem to have come across some studies that may back up what you are saying. That is a big "may". I am willing to consider the evidence as it is presented. Based on the limited info you have provided, it appears the case is still unproven. This begs the question, when it comes to life and murder, why are you willing to jump on an early review and act as if it is coclusive and try to get us to do the same thing?

Quote---"If the effect of EC is mainly to block the LH surge or to interfere with other processes involved in ovulation, is not clear and needs to be further studied."-----------------------------------------------------------------

So why are you acting as if the case is closed when even your study says further studies need to be done. Considering what is at stake, that is pretty reckless on you part.

I don't want to make assumptions about you, but do you know anything about how to evaluate medical studies. Pharmaceutical companies are notorious for using slack statistical requirments, or pushing studies with small sample sizes, or wording the conclusions to give a false impression. They stand to make or lose billions. Your last quote does not even deal with Plan B, but Ru-486. If you think Ru-486 is not an abortion, you are whoefully uninformed and misled.

Like I said before, these studies may pan out, but probably wont. If they do that will be a good thing, but trying to get everyone to accept Plan-B as non-abortafacient based on some questionable studies less than a year after they have are reviewed, especially if you have no expertise (the primary literature in these journals are directed toward professionals) is negligent. If it is unproven and some young Christian lady uses Plan-B and it turns out to be wrong, what will you say when you arrive in heaven. I hope you are right, I really do, but the case is not proven. And the patient product insert information has not been changed to date.

"Levonorgestrel (0.75 mg £ 2) administered on day LHþ 2 did not affect endometrial morphology or any studied markers of receptivity"------------------------------------------------------------

See, this sentence qualifies the statement as being at a certain point in the Leutenizing hormone surge. These are the type of red flag things you need to look for to see if you are being snowed. What if it is taken at a different point in the leutenizing hormone surge??? The jury is still out, and unless you are a primary investigator, I don't see how you can take any other posisition?

Other questions= What was sample size, was it human studies (one of your articles says animal studies), what t-score and confidence interval was used, who funded the study, etc.

I can assure you at this point no medical professional will go on record as guaranting that implantation wont be inhibited, ah, but you will.

 

Well, now that I corrected myself, would you be willing to admit that the source is authoritative?

Since you have not even read the article, much less looked up all of the studies and evaluated them, I find it a bit irksome that you accuse me of jumping to a conclusion.

Umm. . . The sentence that you quoted said that they are not sure at exactly what point levonorgestrel interferes with ovulation. However, their evidence does show that it does work by interfering with ovulation and not by blocking implantation.

Wow. First of all, if you had read my post thoroughly, you would have seen that they compared low dosages of levonorgestrel and mifepristone, and that I said that I was chiefly talking about levonorgestrel since mifepristone is not approved for emergency contraceptive use in the USA. The dosage of mifepristone used elsewhere for emergency contraception is a single 10 mg dose. RU-486 is administered in a 600 mg dose during the first 48 days of pregnancy. These are completely different applications. However, once again if you had read my post you would have seen that I said that I would not recommend using 10 mg mifepristone for emergency contraception because the evidence is that this dosage may in some cases interfere with implantation.

Secondly, these studies are all fairly small because they were done by private researchers and not by drug companies. I have not looked up every single study that was done, but the ones that I have checked on were from private funding and not funded by pharmaceutical companies. Even if they were funded by pharmaceutical companies, that still would not be a rational reason to discount the results--you'd have to look at the methodology before deciding it was invalid.

This is the time at which it would be expected to have the greatest effect. At LH-2 ovulation typically occurs, and if fertilization occurs implantation occurs soon after.

Making guarantees would be uncharacteristic of a scientist. . . I don't guarantee it, but I'll say that every study done on the topic has reached the same conclusion--that their research shows no evidence of inhibition of implantation.

 

The prolife group Human Development Resource Council has a video called "When Human Life Begins" which refutes much of the info covered by Silent Scream. HDRC's mission is to "counter the misrepresentations and outright lies which have become widespread in defense of abortion".

 

The neural pathways are not connected to the brain at this state. The ability to sense, including the sensing of pain, is lacking in the 12th week. Heck, I learned this in college biology, and I went to a Bible college. Now, a fetus in this stage is abundant with neural reflexes, but there there is at this statge no cognitive sense of touch.

Now, that is in no way a support for abortion, but like I said, we need to be credible in our Christian witness.

 

The prolife group Human Development Resource Council has a video called "When Human Life Begins" which refutes much of the info covered by Silent Scream. HDRC's mission is to "counter the misrepresentations and outright lies which have become widespread in defense of abortion". </font>[/QUOTE]But do you have a link to something other than PP or a pro-abortion site that refutes the Silent Scream info? I could find nothing on the HDRC website that refutes Silent Scream.

I guess you are asking us to take your word for it, which doesn't cut the mustard on a debate board when when you have leveled accusations and called something a lie and and those who believe it to be an honest representation, liars.

Can you find ANY pro-life links on the Internet that come right out and says Silent Scream is a lie, a fraud, a scam - to back up your claim? Links, please.

I will probably be waiting for these many links to appear long after the 10-page limit.

Or you could do the Christian thing and admit that possibly the info you have gleaned from pro-abortion sites & PP does have an agenda and apologize for calling me a liar.

 

Well, that sure is comforting to know that when the 11-week-old fetus is being sucked apart and being curetted by a D&C, the little guy is too stupid to know he is being killed and can't feel any pain.

Most of the studies I've seen conducted on the Internet in JAMA and other publications usually are really inconclusive and many are conducted by clinicians who have a bias towards the "choice" movement.

 

I'm a bit confused. Which specific item that I listed is false? I have seen the film many times myself. Though gruesome and horriffic, it's clearly inaccurate.

Feel free to tell me which sprcific items I listed are false.

?? So in order for something to be refuted, it must come from an internet source? That kinda stumps me.

Feel free to list which ones are inaccurate, and list information to correct them, and I will so acknowlege them as such.

You should likewise take a dish of your own medicine and acknowlege the possibility that SS is false. I'm not holding my breath (You never acknowleged that some of David Barton's claims are false, so why should I expect anything different here). If you believe SS to be true, feel free to list data refuting my claims. If my claims are false, it should be easy to. You attempted to refute only one: The fetal heartbeat of 200 being the norm. You won't even acknowlege that you were wrong there. You never acknowlege such. That's sinful pride on your part. Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong by acknowleging that the information yoou listed was in error.

Since I did not call you a liar, I have nothing to apologize for. If a person refuses to acknowlege that Silent Screal is a falsehood, and continues to adhere to it as true, that person is choosing to believe a lie. If I've struck a nerve with you there, I don't know what to tell you.

 

John, you said the film SS is a lie. You made the accusation. The burden of proof is upon you to prove it is a lie. So far, all you've done is dodge the bullet and have not provided any links, just generalizations that have a similar ring to pro-abortion web sites, including PP.

The fetal heart beat is not 200.

BTW, you haven't struck a nerve with me. I don't take anything you say very seriously. Never have and never will.

 

So you would have me lie and say an 11 week fetus feels pain, in order to be anri-abortion? Ridiculous.

Ignorance aplenty: Since JAMA studies don't conclude with your opinions, then the JAMA studies must then be biased. So what you're pretty much sayins is that you will reject any facts that doesn't conform with your view.

Rather than grandstanding, perhaps you could instead provide objective data to the contrary.

 

No one is asking someone who accuses others of lying to lie. The fact is, you've never been an 11-week fetus being sucked out of the womb and no one has ever met a live one to ask at a later date whether or not the aborted baby feels pain.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/08/chicago-tribune-talks-about-abortion.html

Didn't say that at all. Still waiting for your many links, though, which you have failed to produce.

(yawn)

 

Bunyon, I have been doing more searching and found a new article that will make me amend my position.

Durand, M.; Seppala, M.; Cravioto, M. del C.; Koistinen, H.; Koistinen, R.; Gonzalez-Macedo, J.; Larrea, F. "Late follicular phase administration of levonorgestrel as an emergency contraceptive changes the secretory pattern of glycodelin in serum and endometrium during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle." Contraception, 2005, 71, 451-457.

They found that treatment with levonorgetrel prior to the LH surge resulted in an early spike of serum glycodelin and a decrease in the amount of glycodelin-A produced in the endometrium. The early spike in glycodelin may aid contraception because it interferes with the sperm's ability to stick to the egg. However, the decrease in endometrial glycodelin-A theoretically might result in zygote death because glycodelin-A acts as a T cell suppressor.

Because of this I would hold off recommending Plan B until we get more information about the practical significance of these findings in a year or two. However, I would not criticize a woman who chose to take Plan B.

 

Johnv,

Understand - I am highly skeptical of some scientific studies, not because of religious reasons, but because science has gone "opps, we were wrong," so many times in my own life time.

When I was a child science taught that newborn humans couldn't see. They said their studies indicated it was just reflexive eye movement. Anyone who worked with children knew that was balderdash. Then science went, "Opps, sorry. We're wrong. They can see."

When I was a teenager they were still saying that children under 2 months of age were not reacting to people or things with a smile. That it was "gas" and "reflex action" that gave the appearance of a smile. Anyone who worked with children knew that was wrong. In the last two decades science has admitted that is wrong.

Is there an apparent link between neuro conductors and the brain? Well, tests indicate that the brain responds when pain is transmitted on nerves, and that the brain does not respond when nerves don't transmit the signal.

However, there is a lot of information related to pain research that science cannot yet explain. Why is it that some people who seem to have healthy nerves and healthy mylin sheaths, who can think,walk, taste, hear, and see - can't feel pain? They are rare, but they exist, and they exist as high medical risks.

Why isit that some people who have amputated limbs have phantom pain? If pain is actually dependent upon the transmission of signals from one location, along nerves, to the brain, and that transmitter is removed or the path blocked - - why does pain continue? Why don't spinal nerve-blocks work to end pain in cancer patients?

Scientists will say it is memory pain. They base this on the most logical explanation though. They haven't yet found a way to actually research it.

Why are anacephalic newborns able to express pain?

 

I believe it intellectually dishonest to equate a fertilized human egg as anything other than a human.

 

10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 4:30 a.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

LE