Research Shows Unborn Babies Anticipate Touch in the Womb

by Sarah Terzo | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 8/5/14 10:08 AM<!–Email–><!–Email–>

An article in the British periodical The Daily Mail discusses an article in The Journal Developmental Psychobiology which describes the cognitive development of unborn babies. Based on conclusions reached by researchers from Durham and Lancaster Universities in the U.K.

“For the first time, psychologists discovered that foetuses were able to predict, rather than react to, their own hand movements towards their mouths as they entered the later stages of gestation compared to earlier in a pregnancy….

Psychologist Dr Nadja Reissland explained: ‘Increased touching of the lower part of the face and mouth in foetuses could be an indicator of brain development necessary for healthy development, including preparedness for social interaction, self-soothing and feeding.’

The discovery comes after a previous study found babies make faces in the womb, potentially as practice before coming in to the world.

Dr Reissland and a team of researchers from Lancaster University and Durham University, which led the study, used ‘4D’ ultrasound scans – 3D scans that can be seen in real time – to image eight girls and seven boys once a month between the 24^th and 36^th week of pregnancy.

Both boys and girls showed the same rate of development during the study.

In the earlier stage of gestation they saw babies touch the upper part and sides of their heads, although later on they began to touch the the lower, more sensitive, part of their faces and mouths.

By the 36^th week the majority of fetuses were seen opening their mouths before they touched them, which scientists say is a sign that they were anticipating touch…..

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Scientists believe that moving in sequence, opening mouths before sucking on a finger or thumb, shows intention is developing in the fetuses….”

Sarah Griffiths “Remarkable 3D images of a foetus in a womb reveal how a baby’s touching of its face is indicative of its physical and psychological development” Daily Mail 9 October 2013

LifeNews.com Note: Sarah Terzo is a pro-life liberal who runs ClinicQuotes.com, a web site devoted to exposing the abortion industry. She is a member of the pro-life groups Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians and Secular Pro-Life.

WANT MORE:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/08/05/research-shows-unborn-babies-anticipate-touch-in-the-womb/

Exposing the Hypocrisy of Opposing the Death Penalty But Supporting Abortion in 10 Seconds

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 8/4/14 9:32 AM<!–Email–><!–Email–>

One of the biggest hypocrisies in the abortion debate are those abortion defenders who oppose the death penalty because it involves killing a human being but who steadfastly support legal abortion, which also involves killing human beings.

Here is a cartoon that exposes that hypocrisy in 10 seconds.

Writing at LifeNews, Calvin Freiburger has talked about this hypocrisy.

There’s a funny thing about most pro-abortion criticisms of pro-lifers: usually they reveal more about the challenger than the challenged.

Take, for example, the old canard about pro-lifers supporting the death penalty. Upon positing that unborn babies don’t deserve to be killed, we are frequently condemned as hypocrites for (allegedly) turning a blind eye to the state-sanctioned killing of another group of people.

Putting aside the minor detail that they often don’t bother to check whether the pro-lifer in question actually does support capital punishment, the comparison fails every major substantive comparison, other than both acts involving killing. To equate the purposes or the characteristics of either is like equating a Radio Flyer with the Mars rover.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Abortion kills an innocent child; capital punishment kills someone convicted of an unthinkable crime. Abortion can be done for virtually any reason; capital punishment is, well, punishment, meant to deter the worst offenses. Abortion is left entirely to the choice of one woman, with no representation of any kind for the baby’s interests (even non-binding informational requirements are too much to ask of the average abortion defender); capital punishment is carried out only after an investigation, a trial with a constitutionally guaranteed legal defense, conviction by a jury of one’s peers, sentencing, and a lengthy appeal process.

WANT MORE:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/08/04/exposing-the-hypocrisy-of-opposing-the-death-penalty-but-supporting-abortion-in-10-seconds/

Abortion Has Cost the U.S. $16 Trillion in Lost Revenue, The Size of the National Debt

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 8/4/14 10:15 AM<!–Email–><!–Email–>

Washington, DC (LiveAction) — The pro-life movement often talks of the science behind life in the womb, the fact that abortion leaves emotional, psychological and physical scars on women and the inherent beauty of every life. What we don’t often talk about, though, is money.

After all, doesn’t it seem somewhat crass to couch pro-life arguments in terms of economic benefit? The reality, though, is that abortion hasn’t impacted our society only in emotional, social, and cultural ways. It’s also impacted our society economically. And one political scientist is now claiming this very thing.

Mark A. Olson, a former liberal community organizer turned pro-life consultant, has published research that abortion in America has cost our nation more than $16 trillion in federal revenue – or approximately the amount of our current national debt.

In a slide presentation summarizing his research, he first notes that the figure of 50 million abortions far under-represents the cumulative population loss due to abortion, which he places at a staggering 126,469,904 as of January 1, 2014.

Based on this number, Olson applies the per capita individual tax burden to the lost population number for each year, a method which he says controls for other demographic variables. His finding: as of January 1, 2014, $15,734,000,000 in federal revenue has been lost due to abortion.

A press release issued today by Olson stated, “Basic macroeconomics says that any such loss in population will result in a collapse of the necessary aggregate supply and demand to sustain long term national economic growth. The population loss due to abortion would have the same negative economic impact as any population loss due to war, epidemic, or natural disaster. “

Olson concludes that the fiscal problems our nation is facing can be solved neither by conservative nor liberal policies – but only through ending abortion on demand.

The reality is that abortion doesn’t ‘only’ kill children. It doesn’t only devastate women. It doesn’t only shock and grieve men. It doesn’t only deaden national conscience and deprave our collective culture. It does all of these, and more.

Certainly, life is sacred apart from economics – and it always will be. And truth be told, waving signs that read “Save a life, save the economy” probably won’t change many minds and hearts.

At the same time, evaluating the impact of abortion without evaluating the resulting economic losses is an incomplete study. Tragically, we know that not even one dollar of that lost $15 trillion is enough to bring back one of the precious lives lost through abortion.

But one thing we can do is make sure that not one more dollar funds the taking of innocent lives – and not one more dollar propagates the lie that abortion does no harm.

LifeNews Note: Gina L. Diorio writes for Live Action News, where this originally appeared. Reprinted with permission.

WANT MORE:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/08/04/abortion-has-cost-the-u-s-16-trillion-in-lost-revenue-the-size-of-the-national-debt/

Right to Life of Northeast Ohio

Dear Friend:

        No, I’m not nuts! I know it’s the middle of summer. It’s been a pretty hectic summer so far, too! In just the last two weeks alone, I met with a major Planned Parenthood supporter to try and change his mind, was the speaker at a meeting focusing on life and traditional family values, travelled to Washington DC to be part of a pro-life youth coalition summit meeting, was a guest on a national radio show while in DC, met with Ohio state legislators about support for current and future pro-life legislation, had a meeting with a local pregnancy help center to coordinate our efforts, worked with a group on plans to shore up our defense against euthanasia as it tries to slip into Ohio, and a whole lot more!!! There has been so much going on that sometimes you have to remind yourself that you need to get back to the basics, so it’s time to go for a sled ride!

        I’m still not nuts! The letters S, L, E, and D are an acronym which stands for a simple way to pick apart the characteristics that abortion advocates use to say that unborn babies should not be valued as human life. You can use this simple technique to help you teach others:

Size       

 All of the DNA that makes us a human being deserving of the right to life is present at the moment of conception at our tiniest of sizes. This is a scientific fact, not a “religious” opinion. SIZE SIMPLY DOESN’T AFFECT VALUE.

Level of Development

 A baby is less physically developed then a toddler, a toddler is less physically developed than an adult, someone with Down’s Syndrome is less developed mentally than those without it, someone with autism is less developed socially than those without it….you get the picture. Should a person’s rights exist only if they achieve a certain level of development?   If so, than many people could be legally killed AFTER birth!

E nvironment

Is the value of your human life different if you live in cold Siberia from those that live on a warm tropical island? What about if you are homeless? If you live in a mansion, is your life more valuable than if you live in a tiny apartment? Why should a mother’s womb be the only environment where human life has no value?

D ependence

 Civil societies take care of the less able. We protect those who are dependent on others for survival. We do not execute them because they are “inconvenient”, like abortion does for the dependent child in the womb. Should we kill those who are dependent on life saving drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure, organ rejection, or others?  Should we execute those who are dependent on social welfare or social security?

     Pro abortion advocates usually use ONE of the above situations to try and justify the killing of an unborn child, and usually always turn it away from being about the child into being about the rights of the mother to her “reproductive” health. Don’t let them do it! Go SLED riding!

     Our work goes on.

For Life,