"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2l0n81F77ilmU1@uni-berlin.de...

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:17:03 -0500, "Flower Pot"
<IndependantImbecile@Ladies.net> wrote:

"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2l07jnF74ermU2@uni-berlin.de...

High on moral anaesthesia

I CANNOT be the only reader to have felt profound unease at Tuesday's
front page report of the admission by a leading academic, Professor
Vivette Glover, that a foetus aborted between 17 and 24 weeks after
conception may, after all, feel pain. ....

Why aren't the Dr's concerned with the pain women feel?

Why aren't the doctors concerned with the pain babies feel when they are
born vaginally? Vaginal birth is the worst pain most human beings ever
survive. Babies are born with thousands of times the normal amount of
stress hormones in their blood.

Just think about it: the skull of a newborn must literally be crushed as

moves down the birth canal (the skull plates are "tectonic", able to move
over each other, hence the neonatal soft spot - but that does not mean it
isn't painful; just try to squeeze a newborn's skull down to baseball size
and see if s/he objects).

Imagine *your* whole body being squeezed through a narrow canal by sheer
muscular force! The UK veterinarian "James Herriot", who wrote the "All
Things Bright and Beautiful" series, once told about inserting his arm

the vagina of a cow giving birth and tried to describe the agonizing,
incredible, unbearable pain that ensued as she bore down in a contraction.
A woman's fetus experience the same thing - only s/he can't make it stop.
To dimly comprehend how painful it is, have a strong person crush your

as hard as he or she can for a few minutes. Then imagine having your

body squeezed for hours inside the equivalent of a hand and next through

opening that's so tight your skull is deformed and the rest of your body
subjected to immense pressure by the contractions of the extremely strong
muscles that surround you.

There is a reason why babies newly born vaginally have stress and
pain-response hormone levels that are sky high, similar only to those seen
among people who have been forced to have surgery without anesthesia or a
body part crushed: IT HURTS! There is a reason why obstetricians call

"a crisis" for both mother and child and insist it take place in a

There is a reason why, until the late 20th century, stillbirths and

deaths were commonplace. There is a reason why one obstetrician wrote

giving birth and the 48 hours afterwards represent the nearest any normal
woman typically approaches to death in her lifetime - and the same is

true of her baby too.

But strangely, I don't ever hear "pro-lifers" expressing concern about the
horrible pain endured by fetuses during birth, let alone women. And that
last hours, unlike the possible brief noxious sensation experienced by one
of the few hundred fetuses that is involved in a late-term abortion in the
US. (Note: I call the newborn's experience "pain" because "pain" is
psychological as much as physical. Being born lasts long enough, and a
full-term fetus is developed enough, that it can truly experience "pain"
during the hours of birth.)

"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2l0n81F77ilmU1@uni-berlin.de...

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:17:03 -0500, "Flower Pot"
<IndependantImbecile@Ladies.net> wrote:

"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2l07jnF74ermU2@uni-berlin.de...

High on moral anaesthesia

I CANNOT be the only reader to have felt profound unease at Tuesday's
front page report of the admission by a leading academic, Professor
Vivette Glover, that a foetus aborted between 17 and 24 weeks after
conception may, after all, feel pain. ....

Why aren't the Dr's concerned with the pain women feel?

Why aren't the doctors concerned with the pain babies feel when they are
born vaginally? Vaginal birth is the worst pain most human beings ever
survive. Babies are born with thousands of times the normal amount of
stress hormones in their blood.

Just think about it: the skull of a newborn must literally be crushed as it
moves down the birth canal (the skull plates are "tectonic", able to move
over each other, hence the neonatal soft spot - but that does not mean it
isn't painful; just try to squeeze a newborn's skull down to baseball size
and see if s/he objects).

Imagine *your* whole body being squeezed through a narrow canal by sheer
muscular force! The UK veterinarian "James Herriot", who wrote the "All
Things Bright and Beautiful" series, once told about inserting his arm into
the vagina of a cow giving birth and tried to describe the agonizing,
incredible, unbearable pain that ensued as she bore down in a contraction.
A woman's fetus experience the same thing - only s/he can't make it stop.
To dimly comprehend how painful it is, have a strong person crush your hand
as hard as he or she can for a few minutes. Then imagine having your whole
body squeezed for hours inside the equivalent of a hand and next through an
opening that's so tight your skull is deformed and the rest of your body
subjected to immense pressure by the contractions of the extremely strong
muscles that surround you.

There is a reason why babies newly born vaginally have stress and
pain-response hormone levels that are sky high, similar only to those seen
among people who have been forced to have surgery without anesthesia or a
body part crushed: IT HURTS! There is a reason why obstetricians call birth
"a crisis" for both mother and child and insist it take place in a hospital.
There is a reason why, until the late 20th century, stillbirths and maternal
deaths were commonplace. There is a reason why one obstetrician wrote that
giving birth and the 48 hours afterwards represent the nearest any normal
woman typically approaches to death in her lifetime - and the same is nearly
true of her baby too.

But strangely, I don't ever hear "pro-lifers" expressing concern about the
horrible pain endured by fetuses during birth, let alone women. And that
last hours, unlike the possible brief noxious sensation experienced by one
of the few hundred fetuses that is involved in a late-term abortion in the
US. (Note: I call the newborn's experience "pain" because "pain" is
psychological as much as physical. Being born lasts long enough, and a
full-term fetus is developed enough, that it can truly experience "pain"
during the hours of birth.)

Steenkin Man wrote:

Fucking hell, I think ***** Pot is stalking me.

Yep, ***** Pot does that to anyone. She even hounded Bob who had only
ever advocated equal rights to abortion. Ans ***** Pot never has
anything rational to say, just a lot of libelous insults. Bob finally
put her on "ploink"

Why aren't the Dr's concerned with the pain women feel?

***** Pot, you grey-haired hippy, you; there are analgesics to kill the
pain now. There are even antiseptic delivery rooms.

Hell, why would any sane man be concerned with female pain. They whine
and cry all the time anyway, a little pain won't make any difference at
all.

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<66KGc.8021$LT3.308675@news.xtra.co.nz>...

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:14rle05cif57mra2hl969f01503lv58eai@4ax.com...

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:59:09 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

High on moral anaesthesia

I CANNOT be the only reader to have felt profound unease at Tuesday's
front page report of the admission by a leading academic, Professor
Vivette Glover, that a foetus aborted between 17 and 24 weeks after
conception may, after all, feel pain. Many decent people find matters
of this kind distasteful and do not wish to read about them over the
breakfast table.

They have my sympathy; less so, however, than the millions of unborn
children who are victims of the conspiracy of silence that surrounds
abortion. Prof Glover's response should disturb us even more than her
belated recognition that the "termination" of unborn babies in the
womb is likely to cause unimaginable suffering. Rather than face the
truth, she simply calls for anaesthetics: "I am pro-choice, but one
should not muddle the two. One should think about how one is doing it
in the most pain-free way."

Not muddled? If the ability to feel pain is sufficiently
characteristic of a conscious human being for it to be wrong to
disregard such pain, as Prof Glover concedes, then how can it be
right, first, to deprive the foetus of that consciousness, and then to
kill it? If the foetus is a person, with human rights, then to kill it
is murder; if it is not a person and has no rights, then why should it
be anaesthetised like a person? The legitimate purpose of anaesthesia
is to lessen the patient's suffering, not to facilitate his violent
death.

Oh, balls. Killing animals is not murder and yet putting a dog down is
not accomplished by feeding them into a plastic shredder.

That is reserved for day old male chickens. It's true. It was on TV a while
ago. The chicks go cheeping up a conveyor belt and fall into the
shredder.They justify the practice by saying it is too quick for the chick
to feel anything.
(Yet a chicken, able to feed itself and run about, is far more advanced
than
an early human foetus.)
Geopelia

Its still just a chicken! Humans are not the most independent
creatures in our early years, puppies would be 'more advanced' in your
words than a new born. This does not make the unborn any less human.

On 6 Jul 2004 18:38:13 -0700,

But this crowd will get theirs, sir, and will they ever. You just give
it another 40 years or so when many of these same smug
son-of-a-bitches now droning on about "clumps of tissue" are pissing
and shitting their "Depends" in rest homes and Nurse Cratchit pays
THEM a visit with a very long needle and even longer syringe as their
"concerned" relatives drone on just outside that room about the "the
quality" of life and about that "clump of tissue" Nurse Cratchit must
now attend to. But that house and land and bank account won't be on
their minds - no indeed. These are compassionate and caring people,
sir. They want only the best for those in pain.

You're just trying to cheer us up, aren't you?