The latest murder of unborn babies controversy has made the newspaper. On August 24, 2005 the Peoria Journal Star published an article written by an Associated Press reporter who was identified as a medical writer. (What a medical writer is was not explained. Is the reporter a doctor who writes for the AP? What are the reporter's medical credentials? We don't know other than medical writer. If I wrote about heart surgery am I a heart surgery writer. I believe I am.)
The headline was: "Prenatal bliss? Review: Fetuses don't feel pain until late in pregnancy." The authors of the study were referred to as researchers associated with the University of California at San Francisco. The study was a review of other studies. The conclusion by the reviewers was that unborn babies don't feel pain until the last months of the pregnancy.
Two days later a second article written by the same AP reporter was printed. The headline was "Abortion foes criticize article." Actually, the story only contained three paragraphs that dealt with criticisms of the review study. The other ten paragraphs dealt with defending the original study, the editor-in-chief of the magazine that printed the original study (Dr. Catherine DeAngelis), and some of the content of e-mails sent to her. The e-mails were described as "'horrible,vindictive.'" The ones printed did not seem to be horrible or vindictive in my opinion. In short, instead of presenting the criticisms of the original review, most of the article defended the review.
Here is a quote from the article, "Dr. Catherine DeAngelis ... says she strongly opposes abortion even though she also supports women's right to choose." I believe she means women being able to murder their unborn babies. I have discussed several times that there is not now and never can be a right to murder given to anyone unless GOD gives that right. GOD has not given women the right to murder their unborn babies. Let's also examine the illogical statement quoted. Substitute one word for two words used in the quote. It now reads, "Dr. Catherine DeAngelis ... says she strongly opposes sin even though she also supports women's right to sin." One can't have it both ways. One can't oppose sin and then argue there is a right to sin. One can't oppose sin and support sin at the same time. You would think a doctor would realize this obvious truth.
None of the articles reviewed by the reviewing researchers were identified or discussed in either of the two articles. However, I believe it is safe to make the following three observations. (I am certain others can add to this list.) First and most importantly, I doubt if any of the articles dealt with interviews with the unborn babies. I don't beleive any of the actual subjects of the study confirmed that they do not feel pain. Consequently, all conclusions at best are second hand. That means that the conclusion of the review is at best third hand. The farther you get away from the subject the more difficult it is to reach valid conclusions.
Also, most of the conclusions of most studies are general in nature. For example, most sleep researchers have been quoted as saying that adults should get eight hours of sleep a night. However, in my own specific example, I function best on five to six hours of sleep a night--over seven hours and my functioning levels fall drastically. Eight hours is an average; certainly not every single individual in the world needs to get eight hours of sleep a night and some may need more than eight hours a night. Now, even if the vast majority of unborn babies do not feel pain until late in the pregnancy (and that is a huge assumption in my opinion), that can not possibly mean that all babies do not feel pain until late in a pregnancy. That is not how GOD created us. It is not valid to suggest pain can't start until the seventh month of pregnancy, as an example since they don't actually define what late in the pregnancy means. It would be like saying all males die at 72 years of age.
Furthermore, the same reporter (at least, the name is the same) wrote a third article that was published in the Journal Star on July 13, 2005. For this article the reporter is not identified as a medical writer. It just says "of the Associated Press." The headline for the article was "Is it good or bad? Contradiction is common in medical studies." Here is a quote attributed to our same Dr. Catherine DeAngelis. "'The crazy part about science and yet the exciting part about science is you almost never have something that's black and white.'" Here is another quote from the article. "That means nearly one-third of the original results did not hold up, according to the study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association." Wow. If original studies can be proven wrong and a study of other studies is being done, doesn't that increase the possibility of that study being wrong? First, the original studies could be inaccurate and then the review of the possibly inaccurate studies could be inaccurate. It's a lot of possible inaccuracies to try to make a definitive scientific statement about pain in unborn babies. Error, error, error; error everywhere and no one to blame.
Finally, the ultimate conclusion regardless of the accuracy of the study is that unborn babies are being murdered. Personally, I hope and pray that they don't feel pain. (I'm afraid that they do.) They are already being murdered. If an adult is murdered in his sleep, he may not feel pain. Yet, he has still been murdered. The sin is the murder. You may have an adittional sin of inflicting pain, but you still have sin. We still must end the murder of unborn babies in this country.
The headline was: "Prenatal bliss? Review: Fetuses don't feel pain until late in pregnancy." The authors of the study were referred to as researchers associated with the University of California at San Francisco. The study was a review of other studies. The conclusion by the reviewers was that unborn babies don't feel pain until the last months of the pregnancy.
Two days later a second article written by the same AP reporter was printed. The headline was "Abortion foes criticize article." Actually, the story only contained three paragraphs that dealt with criticisms of the review study. The other ten paragraphs dealt with defending the original study, the editor-in-chief of the magazine that printed the original study (Dr. Catherine DeAngelis), and some of the content of e-mails sent to her. The e-mails were described as "'horrible,vindictive.'" The ones printed did not seem to be horrible or vindictive in my opinion. In short, instead of presenting the criticisms of the original review, most of the article defended the review.
Here is a quote from the article, "Dr. Catherine DeAngelis ... says she strongly opposes abortion even though she also supports women's right to choose." I believe she means women being able to murder their unborn babies. I have discussed several times that there is not now and never can be a right to murder given to anyone unless GOD gives that right. GOD has not given women the right to murder their unborn babies. Let's also examine the illogical statement quoted. Substitute one word for two words used in the quote. It now reads, "Dr. Catherine DeAngelis ... says she strongly opposes sin even though she also supports women's right to sin." One can't have it both ways. One can't oppose sin and then argue there is a right to sin. One can't oppose sin and support sin at the same time. You would think a doctor would realize this obvious truth.
None of the articles reviewed by the reviewing researchers were identified or discussed in either of the two articles. However, I believe it is safe to make the following three observations. (I am certain others can add to this list.) First and most importantly, I doubt if any of the articles dealt with interviews with the unborn babies. I don't beleive any of the actual subjects of the study confirmed that they do not feel pain. Consequently, all conclusions at best are second hand. That means that the conclusion of the review is at best third hand. The farther you get away from the subject the more difficult it is to reach valid conclusions.
Also, most of the conclusions of most studies are general in nature. For example, most sleep researchers have been quoted as saying that adults should get eight hours of sleep a night. However, in my own specific example, I function best on five to six hours of sleep a night--over seven hours and my functioning levels fall drastically. Eight hours is an average; certainly not every single individual in the world needs to get eight hours of sleep a night and some may need more than eight hours a night. Now, even if the vast majority of unborn babies do not feel pain until late in the pregnancy (and that is a huge assumption in my opinion), that can not possibly mean that all babies do not feel pain until late in a pregnancy. That is not how GOD created us. It is not valid to suggest pain can't start until the seventh month of pregnancy, as an example since they don't actually define what late in the pregnancy means. It would be like saying all males die at 72 years of age.
Furthermore, the same reporter (at least, the name is the same) wrote a third article that was published in the Journal Star on July 13, 2005. For this article the reporter is not identified as a medical writer. It just says "of the Associated Press." The headline for the article was "Is it good or bad? Contradiction is common in medical studies." Here is a quote attributed to our same Dr. Catherine DeAngelis. "'The crazy part about science and yet the exciting part about science is you almost never have something that's black and white.'" Here is another quote from the article. "That means nearly one-third of the original results did not hold up, according to the study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association." Wow. If original studies can be proven wrong and a study of other studies is being done, doesn't that increase the possibility of that study being wrong? First, the original studies could be inaccurate and then the review of the possibly inaccurate studies could be inaccurate. It's a lot of possible inaccuracies to try to make a definitive scientific statement about pain in unborn babies. Error, error, error; error everywhere and no one to blame.
Finally, the ultimate conclusion regardless of the accuracy of the study is that unborn babies are being murdered. Personally, I hope and pray that they don't feel pain. (I'm afraid that they do.) They are already being murdered. If an adult is murdered in his sleep, he may not feel pain. Yet, he has still been murdered. The sin is the murder. You may have an adittional sin of inflicting pain, but you still have sin. We still must end the murder of unborn babies in this country.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 11:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home