Consciousness is Not a Reason to Support Killing Unborn Babies in Abortions

Many in our society argue that abortion is acceptable because unborn babies are not yet fully conscious. Society seeks to devalue the lives of the unborn, creating its own definitions of humanity based on distorted views of morality. But the truth is that life begins at conception, and a human is created as soon as he or she is conceived. Many individuals who were adopted as infants are grateful that their birth mothers chose not to have an abortion.

Claiming that a person lacks awareness or perception does not justify victimizing them. An individual who violates the boundaries of an unconscious person assaults their humanity. We should be giving a voice to the voiceless, protecting them from actions they did not consent to. This also includes sedated or anesthetized patients.

Many medical schools and professional organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), support abortion as a component of healthcare. Their stance is troubling because it does not recognize the rights of the unborn. Additionally, some in the medical community encourage abortion when prenatal diagnoses indicate Down syndrome or other serious conditions, which reveals their low regard for human life. Thus, it is not surprising that many medical professionals object to informed consent for intimate procedures on unconscious patients.

This is an often overlooked issue that deserves greater attention: many surgical patients undergo intimate procedures without explicit consent and are unnecessarily exposed while sedated or under anesthesia. Medical professionals often ignore a patient’s own notion of dignity, focusing instead on the necessity of the surgery to relieve a health issue or even save their lives. The medical community must place greater emphasis on patient dignity and bodily privacy. Safeguarding dignity is essential for improving health outcomes and upholding the principle of ethical care.

Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

Medical Patient Modesty has received many troubling cases from patients who never consented to intimate procedures and tasks. Also, some reported that medical staff ignored  their wishes for a same-sex intimate care. For example, a woman in Utah sought care at an all-female gynecology practice and consented to a hysterectomy performed by a female physician, explicitly stating that no male staff be present. Despite this, a male anesthesiologist, midwife, and scrub nurse participated without her consent. When she objected to the anesthesiologist, he administered Versed (a sedative drug), leaving her unable to continue protesting. She later learned from the operative report—which listed all personnel present—that a male scrub nurse had assisted in the surgery and had most likely performed the preoperative cleansing of her intimate areas.

Many patients who have endured such intimate violations in medical settings, like this woman, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Sadly, it leads some to avoid medical care, including potentially lifesaving screenings and procedures.

In  2023, NBC news shared an alarming study (https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/more-than-3-5-million-patients-given-pelvic-exams-without-consent-study-estimates-193321541876) that estimates that more than 3.5 million men and women may have undergone intimate exams—such as pelvic, prostate, or rectal exams—during surgery without their consent. It is very disturbing that many of these patients are unaware of what happened to them because they were under anesthesia.

Numerous women who underwent pelvic exams without their knowledge or consent have described a profound sense of violation. Some medical students have also said they were troubled by being instructed to perform such exams without consent, objecting on ethical grounds. Together, these patients and students have shown courage in speaking out and have played a key role in advancing laws in an increasing number of states that protect patients from non-consensual pelvic exams.

However, many medical school professors have opposed those laws because they fear that many patients would not allow pelvic exams to be performed on them, thus depriving students of the ability to learn to perform the procedure. Their viewpoint is troubling and exposes the deception and corruption that pervade many medical schools. Patients should never be treated as “lab rats”—reduced to objects or subjected to intimate procedures without their consent.

Too many unnecessary pelvic exams are performed, and medical schools should work to reduce them. The American College of Physicians has found that routine screening pelvic exams in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women offer no proven benefit and may even cause harm. Medical schools should expand the use of simulators and revise curriculum so that students in non-gynecological specialties—such as cardiology, orthopedics, ENT, or ophthalmology—are not required to perform them. When live instruction is necessary, programs should use trained professionals, known as Gynecological Teaching Associates (GTAs), who can provide consent and real-time feedback in a controlled, supportive environment.

While it is encouraging that an increasing number of states have statutes banning non-consensual pelvic exams, thus criminalizing this practice as a form of sexual assault, these laws fail to address other intimately invasive procedures performed without a patient’s knowledge or consent, which should never be done. These laws need to be modified to require expressed consent for all intimate procedures, including breast, genital, and prostate exams, in addition to other intimate tasks such as inserting urinary catheters, shaving and cleansing the groin / pubic area, placing grounding pads on the buttocks, and removing the gown and underwear resulting in exposure of private areas.

One of the worst cases we received was a patient who was horrified to learn that hospital staff had removed the disposable underwear they had given him and shaved his groin and lower abdomen while he was sedated for a venous ablation procedure that involved the surgeon making incisions around the knee only. It was very deceiving that they provided him with disposable underwear and then removed it once he was sedated. At many other facilities, the groin and pubic areas for this type of procedure are not shaved. He was also livid to learn afterwards that his procedure is more commonly performed in an office setting with a local anesthetic instead of in an operating room with sedation. But he was never presented with this option.

Many people, especially those in the medical community, argue that modesty and bodily dignity for sedated or anesthetized patients is of no importance since they do not know what medical staff subjected them to. This is also true of the approach to unborn babies given that they are not fully aware either. The unborn never consented to being killed just as anesthetized patients never agreed to the intimate tasks and procedures performed on them.

I encourage everyone to read our article, Non-Consensual Pelvic & Genital Exams and Intimate Procedures at https://patientmodesty.org/nonconsensualexams.aspx on Medical Patient Modesty’s web site. Take time to read the articles under the section: Resources about Non-Consensual Intimate Procedures on that web page.

LifeNews Note: Misty Roberts is the president of Medical Patient Modesty, a non-profit organization that works to help educate patients and their families about how to have maximum bodily privacy for procedures; how to stand up for their rights requesting a same-sex medical team for intimate procedures; and how to prevent sexual abuse by medical professionals.  For more information, visit www.patientmodesty.org.

The post Consciousness is Not a Reason to Support Killing Unborn Babies in Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.