Abortion advocates were pleased when reports from the world of medicine suggested that it cannot be shown conclusively that a child in the womb feels the pain of the needle to his heart, the vacuum sucking away his body parts, or the curette that carefully slices him to pieces.  However, a careful reflection on such boldly ignorant claims leads to some realistic assumptions based on what we know and what we can see.

The very first sonogram film depicting an actual abortion was put together by Bernard Nathanson, M.D.  Nathanson was once an abortionist who presided over thousands of such acts of killing.  He eventually repented of his involvement with abortion and became one of the most significant pro-life leaders of our time.

In Nathanson’s real-time ultrasound film, The Silent Scream, produced in the 1980’s, we see a 12-week suction abortion.  It dramatically, but factually, shows the preborn baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while his heartbeat doubles in rate.  When the baby is ultimately caught and his body is being dismembered, his mouth clearly opens wide, screaming silently.  This production is not a melodramatic reenactment; it is an eyewitness account.

Subsequently, many medical professionals have argued, based on their knowledge and the developing body of evidence regarding the preborn, that these children do feel pain, and some say that this occurs as early as eight weeks.

So when the Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a “study” addressing the question of whether a fetus feels pain, we were told by the authors, two of whom have a vested interest in the abortion industry, that the evidence shows “that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”

Please note the careful choice of words.  The five researchers did not offer solid proof but concluded that the “perception” of pain, on the part of the preborn, is unlikely to be detected.  This statement is totally irrelevant on more than one level.

When credible researchers have a conflict of interest, they should make that clear.  If the purpose of the study was to persuade the public that, as has been the case for years, those who support a “woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby do not believe that the preborn is, in any sense, a human being, then they should have stated that up front.  Honesty, however, has never been the hallmark of the abortion industry.

Beyond that is the fact that human embryology has proved that a human being begins at conception.  There is no question about this.  Thus, when an intentional act is taken to eliminate that human being, the truth is that an act of killing has taken place.

Whether the victim “feels” or “perceives” has nothing to do with the vile nature of aborting an innocent human being.  Would it matter if, because your grandmother’s sensory system had been deadened, her attending physician shot her in the head and killed her?  Would you be less likely to press charges of murder?

The same applies to the preborn.  Feeling pain is not the issue in this matter; acting to kill is.  One can haggle over age of the fetus, reactions of the fetus, and whatnot.  But at the end of the day, we are talking about one of us whose life has somehow been downgraded to semihuman or nonhuman.

This discussion about fetal pain actually addresses peripheral questions that distract our attention while thousands continue to die every day at the hands of abortion proponents.  We are thus diverted from the path we should all be walking—straight toward an end to the massive slaughter of our progeny.

Let’s talk about what really matters in this case.  Whether the preborn human being, the “fetus,” feels pain at all, why are we killing innocent children simply because they are not yet born?