Ohio legislators propose total abortion ban

Statistically children in foster and adoptive homes are actually safer than their birth-home counterparts.

Though foster children suffer higher rates of abuse than adopted children, they're still somewhat safer than birth-home children, though data is really difficult to find.

Barth warns that available data do not allow for a direct comparison of abuse of foster children vs. adoptive children. Overall, though, children in foster care appear to be safer than their peers at home but somewhat less safe than adopted children.

(Barth being a well-respected authority)

Source

However, this does nothing to address the basic premise that abortion is currently legal, and to restrict it now would be infringing on the woman's right to privacy as outlined by Roe v Wade. Whether or not R v W was actually appropriate itself is another question entirely - there's enough ambiguity to make it a tricky one to fight out in the courts though.

Furthermore, overturning R v W at this point would in all likelihood increase mortality and cause even more problems in terms of health care of the mother - we'd just see a return to the "back alley". Can anyone here honestly say that such a thing would be preferable to having the procedure performed safely?

If it must be done at all - then it absolutely needs to be done in a safe, controlled medical environment. That's the least we can do.

FF - whether or not you intend to do so, your posting is coming off as being somewhat judgemental. You can't really refer to someone as a murderer (when the law of the land states quite clearly that they are not), and pretend that's not being judgemental, you know?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

or make abortion doctors rich

hadn't heard that one.

You didn't even make it out of this post without bringing it up again.

When preborn children who feel pain are murdered for $$$ and
then their body parts are sold to pharmacutical plants for more $$$
then it's everyone's problem in America. It's a death business, not
an issue of 'choice'.

And sorry, but you did deflect the entire point of my post on the kind of people involved in the anti-choice movement. They are frequently crazies (as you admit) and people with their own reproductive problems and selfish agendas.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by RANT]

Here’s my thoughts.

Abortion has been considered wrong since the birth of medicine. It is even prohibited in the Hippocratic oath, written ~ 400 B.C. :

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

www.pbs.org...

The oath has been changed in America, by the AMA, so that doctors won’t be accused of betraying it.

Why did the Greeks feel this way? Not because they were worried about the Hebrew God, surely.

+++

I don’t believe that a fetus is fully human. But it will be unless someone gets a knife or coathanger or something. Unmolested, it will become a human being.

What is your definition of humanity?

Self-awareness? Then killing a sleeping person must not be immoral.

Able to sustain self? Then leaving someone trapped in a burning car is not immoral either.

Being healthy? Then killing the feeble is not immoral.

++++++

If some abortions are legal, all I need to do is shop around ‘till I find a doctor who will do what I want. Same if abortion is legal b/c of rape, or “danger to the mother.” I can see a doctor saying “This woman doesn’t want to be pregnant today, and that’s a danger to her.”

If a mother can refuse to care for her child in the womb, then it follows that she can refuse to take care of one outside the womb.

Many states currently provide for this. An upset, unfit parent can legally abandon his or her child in a trauma center, ER, or fire station, as long as she informs the supervisor. Why do you think there are restrictions on where and how the parent can abandon the child? Because we care about and value the child, that’s why.

If it is a crime for a mother to dump her newborn baby in a toilet at the prom, why is it O.K. for the doctor to do the same thing 90 days earlier?

++++++

I really don’t want to take away any woman’s rights.

I think every law we pass legislates someone’s morality.

I like the slogan on the “Feminists for Life” website:



"Abortion is a reflection
that we have not met
the needs of women."

“Women deserve better than abortion.”

www.feministsforlife.org...




[edit on 29-9-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
If some abortions are legal, all I need to do is shop around ‘till I find a doctor who will do what I want. Same if abortion is legal b/c of rape, or “danger to the mother.”

What is your alternative?

Would you rather the woman go to an illegal practitioner and risk her life?

If a mother can refuse to care for her child in the womb, then it follows that she can refuse to take care of one outside the womb.

This statement is just illogical

Many states currently provide for this. An upset, unfit parent can legally abandon his or her child in a trauma center, ER, or fire station, as long as she informs the supervisor. Why do you think there are restrictions on where and how the parent can abandon the child? Because we care about and value the child, that’s why.

Once it's been born, yes. Because very simply, the law provides for a born child. It does not provide (with the exception of Conner's Law, which should never have been passed to begin with) for a fetus.

If it is a crime for a mother to dump her newborn baby in a toilet at the prom, why is it O.K. for the doctor to do the same thing 90 days earlier?

How many 6 week old fetuses can survive outside of the womb?

Your analogies just seem terribly flawed to me.

I really don’t want to take away any woman’s rights.

Your words tend to indicate otherwise. Women currently do have the right to an abortion; you'd prefer otherwise.

"Abortion is a reflection
that we have not met
the needs of women."

“Women deserve better than abortion.”

Women also deserve better than rape and incest. And until we can stop rape and incest, there will always be a legitimate need for abortion.





[edit on 29/9/05 by Tinkleflower]

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
What is your alternative?
Would you rather the woman go to an illegal practitioner and risk her life?

Why is that the only option? It's a false alternative. It's like me saying, let me do x, or I'll just break the law to get x anyway.

Should we legalize heroin, so that people won't go to an illegal dealer and risk their on substandard dope?

Legalizing something generally increases the frequency. At over a million abortions a year, this is one of America's most popular surgical procedures. It's not just for rape and incest anymore.

Again, it looks like a false alternative.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Once it's been born, yes. Because very simply, the law provides for a born child. It does not provide (with the exception of Conner's Law, which should never have been passed to begin with) for a fetus.

And, I'm saying, I think it should. Although I don't believe a fetus is fully human, I think it's rediculous to say that on day 181, this fetus is magically a person, but back on day 180, it is not. What happens if a doctor performs an abortion a day late; is he or she committing a crime? What if the doctor's watch is fast, and she didn't realize she was performing an illegal act? To me, it's just nitpicking to hide the moral enormity of a life-altering decision.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
How many 6 week old fetuses can survive outside of the womb?

Is survivability the test of humanity? Because there are hospitals chock-full of people on life support systems, who cannot survive outside of their medical tethers . . . to quote Jim Morrison, nobody gets out of here alive. If a fetus is not human because it cannot survive, I think I found a way to rescue Medicare and Social Security *que sinister music*

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Your words tend to indicate otherwise. Women currently do have the right to an abortion; you'd prefer otherwise.

No, that's not true. I'm not trying to "deprive women" of something you're sure they need. I'm trying to balance what I see as alternative evils.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Women also deserve better than rape and incest. And until we can stop rape and incest, there will always be a legitimate need for abortion.

There you go again with the black/white, yes/no slogan. Are you telling me that if I could radically reduce the rates of rape and incest, that I would also be radically reducing the reason for legal abortions?

Somehow, I don't really think you believe that.

Is this site a reliable source for statistics?
womensissues.about.com...

because they list the reason for abortions given by the women as follows:

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

which one of those does "rape or incest" belong in? It certainly doesn't get its own category . . ..


I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you. I am sure you've given your position plenty of thought. And no offense, tinkleflower, I've enjoyed your viewpoint on lots of threads, even when it's not my own. But you're posts on this seem really . . . doctrinaire.

I have been "pro-choice" most of my adult life. I really don't relish the thought of the government But ever since I got married, I guess my perspective has begun to change.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Why is that the only option? It's a false alternative. It's like me saying, let me do x, or I'll just break the law to get x anyway.

I was asking you for your alternative. Which you didn't yet offer

Should we legalize heroin, so that people won't go to an illegal dealer and risk their on substandard dope?

Not that it's relevant...but...there may be worse alternatives. Remember what happened with Prohibition?

It's not just for rape and incest anymore.

And I never said it was. But if it becomes illegal, it wouldn't be available for when it is for rape and/or incest. That was my point.

[
And, I'm saying, I think it should.

To each their own

The enormity - moral or otherwise - is apparent to most women, though there are of course (and this I've never disputed) those who would - and do - use abortion as a convenience.

Is survivability the test of humanity?

When it comes to the womb - it just might be.

No, that's not true. I'm not trying to "deprive women" of something you're sure they need. I'm trying to balance what I see as alternative evils.

Then suggest some alternatives?

There you go again with the black/white, yes/no slogan. Are you telling me that if I could radically reduce the rates of rape and incest, that I would also be radically reducing the reason for legal abortions?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. This isn't about numbers. It's not about yes or no. It's about the very grey areas inbetween. It's about the certainty that rape and incest happen. And they sometimes result in pregnancies. And because of this, abortion should not be made illegal, because in some cases it really is the only reasonable choice. Adoption is not necessarily a viable alternative to a 12 year old victim of incestuous rape.

which one of those does "rape or incest" belong in? It certainly doesn't get its own category . . ..

Bearing in mind such questionnaires are purely voluntary and that many rape victims might not be inclined to even answer....rape/incest could well fit into the "maternal health" category (if only under mental health).

I have been "pro-choice" most of my adult life.

And conversely...I've been pro-life most of my adult life.

I still am, for the most part. I hate that abortion is necessary; I hate that it's used because sometimes pregnancy is "inconvenient", and I can honestly say I would have never opted for abortion myself.

It's just that I recognise that abortion - however horrible, however brutal, however tragic it might be - is sadly necessary. For that reason, we should really think twice about removing what is often the only option for a victimised woman. And it does frighten me that the government might be allowed to step in and make those demands about what a woman may, or may not choose in that context.

Yup, people change their opinions on things all their life. That should tell you something.

Also, they have abortions because they don't want kids. That should too.

And people smoke because it makes them feel big and clever, get breast augmentation because they have low self esteem and buy guns because they like the "boom."

All legal, stupid and none of my business.

The day the popularity of something stupid becomes cause to outlaw it, we're all in trouble.

Tinkleflower, I was just looking at your avatar, and thinking that I don't know what Buddhism teaches about the acceptability of abortion. I don't know whether you are a believer, but I suspect you are at least familiar with Buddhism's tenets. How do its teachings inform your position?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by riley

Unwanted - Until they are adopted.

Or end up in foster homes to be systematically raped and
abused as many are..

I have never seen any stats that show an abnormally high percentage of
adopted children being abused compared to the average number of birth children being abused. Is there a discrepancy? Got any stats??

I don't need state. I know three personally. Two a drug addict prostitutes now and one got married and had a kid [though she ended up going back to her natural father- who used to bash her anyway.. at least he didn't rape her and take pics of her in the shower though like her stepfather did].

Actually these children ARE adopted and there are many people with hearts big enough to love them. Our adoption agency, Villa Hope in
Birmingham Alabama, adopts out children with special needs. Many
adoption agencies do. Our daughter had Hepititis, double pneumonia,
some kind of exotic skin virus/infection as well as a lazy leg/foot and
her eyes didn't work (something with the muscles, they floated every
where). At this point she has weak lungs from the pneumonia and
has active asthma. She gets pnuemonia every November and usually
again in May or so. She has special orthodics for her feet. He leg has
strengthened up, but her feet are both painful from the fact that her
arches are growing the wrong way. She needs surgery to put titanium
spacers in her joints in her feet. We have to wait until she is 13 or so
and is just about done growing before we can do that.

I'm glad she has you.. though I'm still certain the majority of adoptive parents would prefer perfect new born babies.

Not that we know of. Emily was found abandoned on a bus in Bolivia when she was two days old.

That doen't mean her mother didn't have difficulty.

Nope. I resent no one. I just think it's awful barbaric for people to
kill children, especially when the can feel it.

We've gone over this.. you do not know for a fact first trimestor fetuses feel pain.

RANT brought up things from his own past on his own. If he didn't wish to discuss it, he wouldn't have done so. There was nothing reluctant
about him or his discussion.

You actually conceded that he didn't want to discuss it then said "I will still ask anyway" .. you used the opportunity to spout propaganda [we already have researched how abortions are performed and you don't know if they feel pain] though my main problem was that you had the gall to comment on the trauma of someone else's childhood and what their mother's choices were without having a real clue what either had been through.. why didn't you have a clue? Because he didn't want to discuss it... which is why we shouldn't discuss it any further.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Tinkleflower, I was just looking at your avatar, and thinking that I don't know what Buddhism teaches about the acceptability of abortion. I don't know whether you are a believer, but I suspect you are at least familiar with Buddhism's tenets. How do its teachings inform your position?

Not quite the answer I was expecting lol

The short answer: There's no 'yes' or 'no'. Each case would be seen on it's own merit, and it wouldn't be for me to sit in judgement.

The Dalai Lama has said:

"Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.

"If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."

In Japan many Buddhists are more comfortable with "accepting" abortion, though this doesn't mean abortion is condoned. Rather, it's a tragic but necessary fact of life, and as such, the mother should be viewed with compassion - we rarely know what's really behind somebody else's motivation, and when all's said and done, it is after all, her karmic debt. Not ours. As for the consciousness/soul of the unborn - it would simply be reborn in another vessel.

Abortion will inevitably result in negative karma; the key might be to look with compassion at the reasons why the woman has decided to take a particular course of action. That's why I can't see this as a black/white, yes/no issue. I can't say "yes, it should be outlawed", or "no, it should be available to everyone", because I don't agree with either premise - I couldn't honestly sit here and say "Everyone should be able to have one when they want, for whatever reason they want", because deep down that's not something I believe.

And at the same time I absolutely cannot say "It should not be available to anyone", for the same reason.

Ideally, in my little world, it would be legal only because those relatively few cases of rape/incest necessitate such an option. Some Buddhists would disagree with me; some would agree.

Even though generally speaking, the taking of any life is a negative thing, every situation is different. I wouldn't think it necessary or prudent to jail a butcher, even though his livelihood revolves around taking lives (albeit that of animals). His reasons are valid (to make a living, to feed his own family), and so then each woman might, in all mindfulness, have valid reasons for choosing termination.

One interpretation

Buddhism, bioethics and abortion

And a bit more

Does this explain my point of view a little better?

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

"Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.

"If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."

I've always wondered what the offical word is on it. Thanks.
I guess it depends on what causes the most suffering.. forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she really does not want would be considered oppression and therefore suffering.. which in turn would mean her and the child have to suffer through with the issues [poverty, violence etc] that made her reluctent to have the baby in the first place. I'm not sure about the re-encarnation thing though.. wouldn't the soul [if there is such a thing] just be concieved in someone else instead?

[edit on 30-9-2005 by riley]

Interesting, but I purposefully don't pollute my instincts with modern buddhist thought. It pisses off the ancient Zen Master (not to mention the Kabbalist Rabbi and 19th century fire and brimstone protestant minister) that lives in the Dojo of my brain.

My gut told me that my eye would be snatched out for contemplating the proper thing an evil woman should do. It's none of my concern.

Originally posted by riley
We've gone over this.. you do not know for a fact first
trimestor fetuses feel pain.

www.abortionfacts.com...

This is information gathered by a group that I believe is pro-life.
However, it doesn't change the facts that they have gathered.

The second two trimesters they absolutely feel pain.
There is some evidence to support that they can feel pain
as early as 8 weeks. I don't know if I fully buy that and
I will have to do more research on it, but here is some of
the science behind the pain preborn children feel, including
natural discomforts in the womb such as the mother's
back bone, etc.

Originally posted by RANT
They are frequently crazies (as you admit) and people
with their own reproductive problems and selfish agendas.

You get crazies with every group. The culture-of-death bunch have
theirs. Your side has people who advocate euthanizing children
up to two years after they are born because they don't have
certain cognitive abilities. I don't consider those radicals to be
truly part of the pro-abortion group, even though they claim to
be. Most pro-life people wish that Operation Rescue would
stop 'helping' the cause.

As far as selfish agendas ... check out Planned Parenthood
and theirs. The mucky mucks aren't in it for alturistic reasons.
It's all $$$.

And then there are those who use the bodies for their own
reasons not having to do with $$$ -
news.bbc.co.uk...

People with their own reproductive problems? As I said - 1/8 of
all adult Americans have reproductive problems. 1/4 of all
married couples. You have people with reproductive problems on
both sides of the issue. There are too many of us to lump into
one side or the other.

My reasons for disapproving of abortion are physiological. The
unborn child feels the pain. I wouldn't want to die by being shredded
and sucked up in a vacuum. I wouldn't want to die burning to death
in a chemical bath. I wouldn't want to see any grown ups die like
that. I don't like to have unborn children die that way either.
It's just that simple.

I have no psychosis. No agenda. I don't call pregnant women whores.
I don't throw blood at people. I'm not screaming bible quotes.
I just dont' like human beings being subjected to that kind of pain.


[edit on 9/30/2005 by FlyersFan]

I wonder if doctors would be allowed then to inject painkillers or opiates and resolve all your physiological problems with abortion. Seems simple enough. No pain. Problem solved. Unless there's something else?

Originally posted by RANT
I wonder if doctors would be allowed then to inject painkillers
or opiates and resolve all your physiological problems with abortion.

I know that once upon a time it was discussed. And then I heard
nothing about it on the news. The radical left... (notice I said RADICAL
so all you lefties don't get upset) said that if you admit that the preborn
child feels pain, then it's a slippery slope and then you have to admit
they are human, blah blah blah. So they pushed for no pain killers.
I remember hearing this discussion briefly .. about 10 years ago.

Pain killers are administed to preborn children who have in the womb
surgery. It's very simple to see that if preborn children need pain
killers for surgery, then they feel the pain of abortion.

I really wish this pain aspect would be addressed fully and
with medical reasoning. I would feel much better and less
frustrated with all this if it was.


[edit on 9/30/2005 by FlyersFan]

"If some abortions are legal, all I need to do is shop around ‘till I find a doctor who will do what I want. Same if abortion is legal b/c of rape, or “danger to the mother.” I can see a doctor saying “This woman doesn’t want to be pregnant today, and that’s a danger to her.” "

They don't trust the doctor to make a valid assessment of the danger?

but....
I know of two cases where there was an attempt to force c-sections onto women.
"We're sorry you will die, but we can't trust the words of the docTors, you can't have that medical proceedure.....but then, we're sorry, you don't even deserve a second opinion, we're forcing this medical proceedure onto you....we KNOW this doctor is right.
Which is it? Are doctors money hungry immoral people who can't be trusted, or infallible as the pope. One thing is for sure, a society that forces medical proceedures on women in an attempt to save UNBORN babies has no right denying her medical proceedures TO SAVE HER LIFE! all it is is a bunch of hyprocrisy, based on assumptions and stereotypes.

"if a women doesn't want to have a baby....."
the fact is, if you counted the women who had been granted the power and ability to say no throughout the last half century or so, it would be a small portion of the total number of women who lived during that time. Rape wasn't even considered rape until the past 30-40 years or so, if it involved a married couple!

"it's all about sex without consequences".....
you're deliberately neglecting the portion, which is larger than I think you want to admit, where there is ligitamate health concerns! not only are there those who lives would be endangered, but how many women have been advised to abort because the medicine that they are taking will adversely harm the baby that they are carrying. It will cause severe malformations, ect. So, are willing to allow YOUR Taxdollars to pay for the many medical proceedures, the life long care of all these children, if they were brought into the world?

"well, they are better off born in this world with all those problems, than have to go through the pain of abortion, and lose their life".
prove it!! prove that the pain involved in abortion is any greater that the pain the feel giving birth. prove to me that the pain that they wil daily encouter while they struggle to live with these malformations, the medical proceedures to make them more adapted to our world, is worse than if they were denied access. YOU CANT, and according to christian philisophy, where they would find heaven as their new home, it isn't! What if, what really happens is the essence which we call life, of this child is given to another, who has no medical problem that requires toxins be pumped into her to keep her functioning, and the child is actually given a chance at a full life? Then well, you have denied the child, by forcing it to be born, knowing full well of the pain and suffering that it would endure, and well, if you hadn't, the child would have avoided all that, and be a happy, functional person!

and the simple fact is....no birth control method is 100% effective, so gals, if you don't want babies, well, take the advice of our gov't, abstain from sex, even with your husband.....let's force society into the life that our government (and the right to lifers) are trying to cram down our throats, just long enough for them to realize that this isn't really what they want. the lives of at least some of our daughters, and granddaughters just might be as stake here.

"Why is that the only option? It's a false alternative. It's like me saying, let me do x, or I'll just break the law to get x anyway. "

and if the only option left is the women's death, well, you're perfectly fine with that one?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health. "




[edit on 30-9-2005 by dawnstar]

[edit on 30-9-2005 by dawnstar]

The pain issue is nothing more than another attempt by pro lifers to bring more fire to an issue that they wish to control.

Birth is painful to a mother but a new born child doesn't experience the pain of birth.

One of the issues been bang over and over is that when a new born child is born it has to be slap to make it cried so it can have his first breath of life.

Pain in the Uterus will never be proved and if the issues keep coming up by pro lifers then we should ban natural births because it will cause trauma to the new born.

These issues brought by pro lifers is becoming so ridiculous to the point that they are actually undermining their own judgment.

Abortion is not actually an issue for women that can not have babies or are beyond childbearing years, or like me I am unable to have children anymore for medical reasons.

Then why they are so adamant about women choices or why they are so eagle to make choices for other women?

I wonder if the agenda is more personal than anything else.

In my case abortion is no longer an issue, but I make it personal because is my daughters issue as a Young women and I will fight for her right to have the control of her body.

So is not your body so back off.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
www.abortionfacts.com...

This is information gathered by a group that I believe is pro-life.
However, it doesn't change the facts that they have gathered.

It kind of does change the facts when they're taken out of context. 'Abortion'facts'.com are notorious for publishing false and missleading information so I do not trust the source.. when I first saw it I thought it was a medical site until I started reading. One 'fact' they have published is one that was adamently condemned by the world health organisation as being bs.. that was in reaction to the popes announcement "It is a scientific fact that condoms don't prevent the aids virus" or something to that effect [he apologised and retracted it]. That site still of course states this as fact when it's been proven a complete fabrication. No doubt there are many other things on that site that are a bit dubious as well if they are willing to spread such dangerous disinformation.

The second two trimesters they absolutely feel pain.

Agreed.. however the majority of abortions would be performed in the first; and any after that time would probably be done under a general [fetus would be under as well] as the operation would be more complex and risky. I also think that abortions performed in the third trimestor are probably done for medical reasons.

It took me a while to find objective data on fetal development.. most regarding it were pro-life but I managed to find this:

eileen.250x.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> eileen.250x.com... In summary, prior to 22 weeks the fetus does not have the neuroanatomical pathways in place to feel pain, between 22 and 26 weeks thalamo-cortical connections are forming, and after 26 weeks the fetus has the necessary connections to feel pain.

It basically says that they probably can't recieve pain signals at a very young age but I don't think they are certain.

Originally posted by marg6043
Pain in the Uterus will never be proved

It already has been. Look at the links that both Riley and
myself have provided. It's just getting down to exactly
which week the preborn child starts to feel pain that is
in question. Some say as young as 8 weeks. Some say
as old at 22. The truth of the matter is probably in
the middle ... 12-14... at least that's what I'm deducting
as I look around.

So is not your body so back off.

I'm sure that's what the unborn child would say when the
vacuum suction starts ripping her apart ... if she had a
voice that could speak.

The closest thing we have to hear the voice of the unborn
is medical research. Brain waves ... heart beats ... skin
responses. They ALL say that preborn children feel pain.
The research isn't clear as to when that starts.