Former abortionist: Abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother

a reply to: MuonToGluon

Self defense is not the same as murder... i was referring to murderers killing innocent people and rapists who have been found guilty. As for the claim that Trump is a rapist... There are already several women whose testimony has been found to be false. The left and the elites are hard at work to make false claims about Trump. Again, nothing but an attempt by Dawnstar to derail the thread... Because then we would have to discuss the wikileaks, and other evidence which shows the claims of many of these women is false. But again, the thread is not about Trump, so stick to the topic of the thread.

originally posted by: blackadder01
It's hard to believe in this day and age
sacrificing babies to medical science is okay
, to the experts.

That's really bad expert advice if you ask me.

Ins't ironic that the same people who claim it's ok to kill the unborn through abortion because then their body parts can be used for experiments, yet these are the same people who rant against animal experimentation?... The fact that to these people the life of an animal is more important than the life of human fetuses is a clear sign of the insanity of these days from the left. I am not in favor of abusing animals, but a human fetus' and newborn's life should be more important than an animal's life.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Embryo transfer is a valuable technique for overcoming infertility in women. It carries risks of infection for both donor and the recipient. It also carries the risk of unwanted pregnancy for the donor if the embryo implants in the uterine wall before it can be removed.

www.discoveriesinmedicine.com...

Implantation is the attachment of the fertilized egg when the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyst) has completed its travel through the fallopian tube and adheres to the lining of the uterus. Implantation happens about a week after ovulation with a range of 6-12 days after fertilization.

www.babymed.com...

sounds to me like the fertilized egg has to removed before it implants into the uterus. ..


someone might have had some success in a few experiments somewhere, or maybe a hail mary save the baby stunt...
but, I have checked out a few sites and I am not seeing any saying that it's possible after implantation.

a reply to: dawnstar

hummm...

On women under age 35 the success of clinical pregnancy per embryonic transfer on day 5 is 74.9%, the success of live birth per embryonic transfer is 68.1%

On women age 35-37 the success of clinical pregnancy per embryonic transfer on day 5 is 63.3%, the success of live birth per embryonic transfer is 52.7%

On women age 38-40 the success of clinical pregnancy per embryonic transfer on day 5 is 68.9%, the success of live birth per embryonic transfer is 52%

On women age 41-42 the success of clinical pregnancy per embryonic transfer on day 5 is 59.3%, the success of live birth per embryonic transfer is 37%.

The younger the woman is, the higher the chance of pregnancy, and live birth per embryonic transfer. This is coming from the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago.



www.advancedfertility.com...

These are "fresh transfer procedures". When the embryo is 5 days old, the success of embryonic transfer increases than when the transfer is done when the embryo is 3 days old.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

if you are saying that this would be a great way of using up all those frozen embryos that they have laying around wondering what to do with, I would agree...
but you seem to be implying that women who are pregnant can just donate their embryos as an alternative to abortion, which I don't think it works like that.

and, again, there are over a hundred thousand children in the foster care system waiting to be adopted.
maybe we should have a first come first serve policy with this....
let the frozen embryos stay frozen till all those kids are placed.

a reply to: dawnstar

In fact, vitrified/frozen embryo experiments have shown significant higher mitotic abnormalities than using fresh embryos.

...
Conclusion:

It can be deduced that long term cryopreservation may result in chromosomal abnormalities and/or low viability.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: dawnstar

Actually, my argument is that if the "pro-choice crowd" was not about "pro-abortion" then why is it that we never hear the pro-choice crowd advice women that they could have embryo transfers instead of outright killing the unborn? If you look at any pro-choice protest what they call for is "abortion". In fact, pro-choice is "abortion rights" not truly about other choices but abortion.

March for Abortion Rights: Pro-Choice Counter Protest

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

because.... most abortions don't take place that soon after conception? matter of fact, I imagine alot of the women don't know they are pregnant yet. nor, do I think that any doctor could validate that they are pregnant as that early stage.

In one sense, we are already using cryonics for family planning purposes: cryopreservation of embryos is often used in addition to in vitro fertilization (IVF) in order to save the extra embryos created in vitro for possible later implantation in utero.



Embryo cryopreservation is the process of preserving an embryo (at a pre-implantation stage, i.e. from day 2 to day 6 of development) in liquid nitrogen at minus 196 oC. Both vitrification and slow programmable freezing techniques are used to cryopreserve the embryo and to avoid ice crystal formation. According to the International Committee for the Monitoring of Assisted Reproductive Technology, at the moment hundreds of thousands of embryos are cryopreserved in fertility clinics all over the world and, from 2007 to 2013, 2.5 million babies were born through IVF techniques.1



IVF and embryo cryopreservation are relatively widespread and common techniques, and in some countries (such as the UK and Australia) their costs are (at least in part) subsidized by the public health system.



In principle, there is no reason to assume that cryopreservation would not work on embryos at the blastocyst stage or on a fetus (Pavone et al., 2011). Current embryo cryopreservation does not venture beyond the blastocyst stage, since it relies on natural implantation in the endometrium. If placental tissue could be cultured (for example by adopting methods from regenerative medicine), then fetal implantation outside the womb might become possible.

jetpress.org...

might be possible.... in the future... but not now!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
might be possible.... in the future... but not now!!!

It is already being done now. That research I posted was about 3 and 5 day fresh embryos being transferred from one woman to another woman. There have been many successes of embryonic transfer that led to successful live birth... People don't have to wait for the future. This has been happening since 1983...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

3 to 4 day embryos!!! they are still traveling down the follopian tube probably, mother unaware, not even implanted into the uterus. the source you gave, if I am remembering right, the scientists knew there was a fertilized egg of the appropriate stage, because they put it there.
I've ran across only one story where a older fetus, that had implanted itself already was transferred and it was a hail mary pass. the mother was dying and the doctor just decided to try it and it works to his surprise. but, then further attempts really didn't have that high of a success rate, something like 2 out of 10 or 2 of 7.

But, most pregnancy tests will not detect pregnancy that early and most women don't take one till they miss at least their first period, and usually wait a week or so before they even test.

a reply to: dawnstar

You keep on making claims without any supporting evidence. I posted the facts directly from a website that has done embryonic transfers successfully. You see, even at a ratio of 50%, it still gives a chance to the unborn to live, unlike abortion, which is the only choice the pro-choice crowd only talks about and brainwash women into believing "makes them free"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

okay, then....
find my one place where a women can donate her fertilized embryo??
just where would I refer a pregnant women?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: dawnstar

You keep on making claims without any supporting evidence. I posted the facts directly from a website that has done embryonic transfers successfully. You see, even at a ratio of 50%, it still gives a chance to the unborn to live, unlike abortion, which is the only choice the pro-choice crowd only talks about and brainwash women into believing "makes them free"...

so, you are for forced birth, regardless....I guess that's what you call "freedom"

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?

So what about the rights of the mother & father?
Are they not heard?
Certainly it seems to me that you are completely ignoring them and focusing on a foetus.
And focusing on a foetus with absolutely no plan of what happens after it's born and with seemingly no inclination to do anything anyway.

We are talking about third trimester abortion. On the third trimester the human fetus is viable, and can even survive outside of the womb. What you are saying is that the right of the parents are more important than the right of the viable human fetus. Should we also give right to parents over the right of their newborn? After all, and again progressives have already laid the ground to move the goal of abortion to "after birth abortion". The only difference between a human fetus in the third trimester, and a newborn is that the newborn lives outside the woman's body. Is somehow the fact that the baby is outside the mother's womb made him human? In the third trimester human fetuses can feel pain, and an abortion causes not only pain to the viable human fetus, but death.

originally posted by: Pardon?
Nope.
No it wasn't.
I'd suggest the "debate" has been going on for centuries.
Unless of course you can show otherwise.

Yes it was... Margaret Sanger, the woman who helped fund Planned Parenthood was a eugenics advocate, a socialist, and more than that, she was even in favor of using terrorism, and assassinations to fulfill their socialist goals. She was in favor of birth control for the poor, and that's part of eugenics. To "cull the undesirables". In fact, it was Sanger who coined the term "birth control".

Margaret Sanger Quotes, History, and Biography

originally posted by: Pardon?
And no, the "pro-camp" doesn't have "complete disregard to the most innocent human lives" they want the right to be able to make a decision. That's it.
...

No?... Claiming that the human fetus is somehow not human?... That "it's like a virus" or making such other claims to disregard a human fetus even on the third trimester as having no rights is not a complete disregard to some of the most innocent human lives?

First of all read what I wrote and reply to that rather than putting your own slant on it.

I'm not saying that the rights of the parent are more important at all, show me where I wrote that.
To spell it out again, you are ignoring the rights of the parents and focussing solely upon the foetus which is as bad as what you claimed I said.
Again, you've got no plan as to what to do when this foetus is born.
I don't actually believe you care what happens either, just as long as it's not aborted.

Whilst Margaret Sanger may have had a few extreme ideas (which weren't actually extreme in the age she lived in) do these principles still get upheld by PP now?
No. No they don't do they?
So you're trying to demonize them for something they don't do.
Very poor argument technique but expected from you lot.

I may have missed the posts were the "pro-camp" were referring to foetuses as viruses and claiming they have no rights so in that respect your last paragraph means nothing and is another example of your very poor argumentative technique.
Putting words into others' mouths makes you sound like you're not actually reading what others have written and are not actually debating and trying to convince yourself of what you're saying.
Again though, you're completely ignoring the rights of the parents. For some bizarre and twisted reason that doesn't even register with you does it?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: dawnstar

Actually, my argument is that if the "pro-choice crowd" was not about "pro-abortion" then why is it that we never hear the pro-choice crowd advice women that they could have embryo transfers instead of outright killing the unborn? If you look at any pro-choice protest what they call for is "abortion". In fact, pro-choice is "abortion rights" not truly about other choices but abortion.

March for Abortion Rights: Pro-Choice Counter Protest

Why WOULD you hear of that?
How do you know that isn't suggested as an option?
Have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood counselling session?

They're marching for their right to choose not for their right to have abortions.
Which bit don't you get?

If all else fails with you, you just make stuff up to try to bolster your argument.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: blackadder01
It's hard to believe in this day and age
sacrificing babies to medical science is okay
, to the experts.

That's really bad expert advice if you ask me.

Ins't ironic that the same people who claim it's ok to kill the unborn through abortion because then their body parts can be used for experiments, yet these are the same people who rant against animal experimentation?... The fact that to these people the life of an animal is more important than the life of human fetuses is a clear sign of the insanity of these days from the left. I am not in favor of abusing animals, but a human fetus' and newborn's life should be more important than an animal's life.

Research carried out with consent using tissue from a dead foetus (it has to be consented to by the mother, a bit like consenting for your own organs to be used after you die) is very different to performing experiments on live animals.
You're comparing apples with wingnuts.

Once again though, don't let the facts get in the way of your belief eh?

originally posted by: jimmyx


so, you are for forced birth, regardless....I guess that's what you call "freedom"

This is what bothers me the most about the "forced-birth" crowd (see what I did there other posters? You want to call us pro-abortion or pro-murder than I think I am going to just change your name to either forced-birth or anti-woman)

It's all about pseudo-outrage and caring about a non-viable fetus until a baby is born. Then when it is born, "how dare mom and dad ask the state for welfare!" or my favorite..."she should have used protection or not had the baby!" Meanwhile, trying to defund PP whose abortion statistics are about 12% of what they do. They offer health checks, contraceptives, etc...all the things the pro-life crowd keep yelling for.

So essentially, to recap to women out there...the stance of pro-life, forced-birth, anti-women

You should not be allowed to have abortions
You should not be allowed health checks
You should not be allowed to have access to the contraceptives that would keep you from pregnancy
Despite being pro life, we will kill, maim, or harm doctors and nurses and attempt to damage the building housing said professionals
You should have never had the baby despite any claim of accident, failed contraceptive, etc
There is no such thing as a medical threat to mother during late-term pregnancy

I think I covered most of it

a reply to: KyoZero

actually, many of them are against the birth control or most of the methods, because part of the defensive mechanisms that they use could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

a reply to: dawnstar

Precisely my point. Don't allow women any opportunity other than not to have sex....force the birth to carry through...yell at said woman for burdening the planet or government or economy

a reply to: KyoZero

but, let enough married women just decide that they don't want anymore kids and therefore no sex, and I bet that you would see them move to change the laws to make it much harder for women to refuse!!
so ya, you are right, forced birth.... have those kids, so we don't have to import those nasty foreigners to help us keep wages at pathetic levels!!!