Fetuses Dissed By Godless Scientists
First Galileo insulted The Church by saying the sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth. Then Charles Darwin said that God didn’t create the world in seven days — some newfangled theory about "Evolution."
And now it’s the end of another myth: the Silent Scream — the agonizing death throes of unborn children being murdered by their pagan mothers.
According to a new scientific study, the fetus doesn’t feel any pain until the final months of pregnancy. Oops! Time to revise the ol’ belief system again.
Right now federal legislation is pending that would require doctors to provide “fetal pain information” for women seeking abortions after the 5th month of pregnancy. The law would also require that anesthesia be given to the fetus after the 5th month. Several states already have this law.
But now this report, from the Journal of the American Medical Association, says administering anesthesia to the fetus can endanger the mother’s health.
According to this study, fetuses start feeling pain around the 7th month of pregnancy. The brain structures involved in perceiving pain are not functional until the 7th month.
The journal’s editor-in-chief said there was no political agenda for publishing the findings. “Oh please. If I had a political agenda, I wouldn’t pick fetal pain. We publish data-based, evidence-based science.”
About 18,000 abortions are performed in America during or after the 5th month.
And now, in a related story, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had some advice in 1985 for the California Pro-Life Medical Association, who wanted to perform a memorial service for aborted fetuses. He told them their plan was “an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy.”
Looks like our Culture Wars will be heating up again, just in time for the 2006 elections. Pat Robertson has his work cut out for him. After he gets through assassinating the President of Venezuela, he might as well just keep on huntin’ and shootin’. We got us a few of them heathen scientists that need a little Bible lesson.
posted by Tom Harper @ 7:52 PM
14 Comments:
You're right Tom...look out for the pitchforks!
This may just eb the straw that breaks the camel's back. Those damn scientists keep screwing up everything so we'll just have to push science even further back into the closet, if and when we can.
Boy, those people in the Dark Ages sure had things good...
Ken: Oh yeah, pitchforks coming our way! Them dadgum scientists. I knew we should've burned Galileo at the stake instead of just placing him under house arrest. We should have made an example out of him.
I agree, Ken. The problem with the painless fetus theory is that... it is a product of... gasp... SCIENCE!
Re. Reverend Pat, didn't he once mention that he would like to nuke the State Department? Of course he is famous/infamous for his remark on feminism: feminism encourages women to 'kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.' What a dork.
Pat is truly a man of peace. Verily he saith unto us, slaughter those who disagree or who would attempt to render your opinions irrelevant.
Donald: Damn those infernal scientists. Of course a fetus suffers if its godless mother aborts it. God said so!
And we need a loving peaceful Man of God to remind us of this. Vote for Pat Robertson!
Uhohseven: Yeah, “intelligent design.” Might as well call alchemy “spiritual chemistry.” I’ve always thought like you said, if God is so all-powerful, He doesn’t need us to defend him and suppress anyone who disagrees with Him.
I’m not against religion or anything spiritual; it’s just a totally separate thing from science. Two different approaches.
Sooo, when the next study comes out saying unborn babies can feel pain, are you gonna blog about that, Tom? If you miss it, I'll remind you.
Not that an administrator for an abortion clinic might have a vested interest in the report, or anything. Science is about multiple research studies, by objective researchers.
This is a review of the literature, not a research study. Big difference, if I remember my grad Research classes.
Good post. Thanks for alerting us to that article. Very interesting.
Mark: OK, it’s a deal. I’ll blog about a differing study if one comes along. If I “miss” it you can remind me. Being that I’m biased and all that, I might have a different slant when I write about it, but I’ll mention it.
Liz: Thanks.
Works for me Tom. I don't mind that you're biased. We all are. It's when the bias is hidden beneath a claim of "objectivity" that makes me start yelling. :-)
Great post.
I concur with the other commentors about the fact that these folks show no regard for science...but rather seek out whatever excuse they can to make their religious BS the conventional wisdom.
I don't know why people create a dichotomy between science and religion. I mean Kepler and Mendel were members of Catholic clergy.
Mark: True, we’re all biased; some people just try to hide it.
Carla: Thanks. Yeah, they’re entitled to their religious views, but too often they try to disguise them as science. That’s when the backlash erupts.
Christopher Trottier: It would be nice if there wasn’t a dichotomy between the two. Unfortunately, too many people from each camp tend to ridicule or squelch the people in the other camp.
At exactly what point in time did science and religion become enemies? It sometimes seems like the religious-right is just looking for a fight.
Timmy: I'm not sure when the two became enemies. The Religious Right just needs to have a certain number of enemies to focus on.
<< Home