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

originally posted by: reldra

They are. Any that are performed, are. It is the law.

I have not seen Clinton say that. If you have a quote, did she mean as elective or to save the mother's life?

She was asked specifically this question.



Here is another video in which Hillary Clinton says that "under our laws there doesn't exist anything that gives a Constitutional right to unborn babies at any time", which is false...

At around 1:30 you can hear her claim this false statement.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When does the constitution say the fetus gets rights?

originally posted by: Phage

Not being a physician, no I don't. That's why I don't depend on the opinion of a single physician when it comes to important health decisions. Nor or I depend upon the opinion of anyone who make broad generalizations which exclude exception.

So again, give us proof that at the third trimester abortion is viable to save a woman's life, when an abortion takes days to perform and most women do not have in most cases even 36 hours if they have complications that late in the pregnancy.

I am not asking for rhetoric, but facts Phage. Rhetoric are not facts.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When does the constitution say the fetus gets rights?

Roe Vs Wade does... Which is why the states can decide on the third trimester, contrary to what the "pro-choice" crowd tells you.

...
Trimester framework

The Court ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion and the government cannot interfere with that right. In the second trimester, the woman still has a right to an abortion, but the state has an interest in protecting the woman’s health. Therefore, while states cannot ban abortion in the second trimester, they can protect the woman’s health by requiring physicians and clinics to meet certain standards (e.g., cleanliness requirements) in order to perform abortions. States can pass laws concerning abortion in the second trimester only so long as they intend to protect the woman’s health. In the third trimester of pregnancy, the Court decided that the state has a right to protect the life of the unborn if it so chooses. Because the unborn child is viable—she is capable of surviving outside the womb—the state’s right to protect the unborn is now more important than the woman’s right to have an abortion. Thus, in the third trimester, states may pass laws that significantly restrict or even prohibit abortions, as long as there are exceptions for when abortion is necessary to preserve a woman’s life or "health."
...

www.mccl.org...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Nor or I depend upon the opinion of anyone who make broad generalizations which exclude exception.

a reply to: Phage

So again, in other words you have no valid counter-argument Phage?... As in proof denying what this doctor says on third trimester abortions not being viable to save a woman's life? Gotcha...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Abortion is a barbaric practice.

Period.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

We are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Ugh.

One can be against the idea of having an abortion for themselves and also passionately support the right for others to have them (describes my mother and other women I know). "Pro-abortion crowd" makes it sound like all we want is for every woman to have an abortion. No. It's about having a legally sanctioned choice.

The so called "pro-choice" crowd is never about saving the life of the child

The pro-life supporters typically invoke a religious argument for a divine spark of life at conception. So aborting no matter how early is murder in their eyes.

However, in the real world the fetus needs to have sufficient neurological development before consciousness can arise. Prior to that it's not a sentient person that can experience suffering. Therefore a person isn't being killed.

Pro-choice is not about baby killing. You denying that reality doesn't somehow change reality.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That's what I said. Twice now.

I have to say I'm ignorant and really had no idea abortions were being performed in the third trimester, being that the baby can survive outside the womb around this stage ( depending on certain factors of course ).

I thought when it was a medical emergency to save the child or mother, a c section was performed. An expectant mother ( emphasis on expecting ) upon discovery there is something gravely wrong and the baby needs to come out, would surely beg to hsve a c section and try to save the child and herself. With today's advances in saving babies born prematurely, these babies hsve a good chance at survival. Why would she want to carry a dead baby around in her for days? Or like he said put herself at risk anyways?

Or if it's close to the time of birth, they just induce labour?

So this is like some surprise news that she's finding out there's something wrong, after she's been planning for this child's birth?

I'm not against abortions in the early stages but this just seems so unethical, I'm shocked it's taking place

I suppose I need to see an example of one where it indeed had to be done. This guy says it takes days to do

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When does the constitution say the fetus gets rights?

Oh and btw, you do know that the U.S. Constitution does state that anything not covered by the other amendments in regards to rights, etc shall be decided by the states? Which is what Roe vs Wade is about which the pro-choice crowd wants to stop.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That's what I said. Twice now.

You gave us rethoric and a comedy video, not any facts contradicting his statements.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
I said that in making important decisions regarding health it is advisable to seek more than one medical opinion. Is that rhetoric?

I said that I cannot agree with broad generalizations which exclude exceptions. That is my opinion. Do you deny me that opinion?

a reply to: Phage

I asked you for proof denying what this doctor has to say about abortion on the third trimester not being viable to save women's lives. It shouldn't be hard to show it. You keep stalling, and making more and more rhetoric but I still don't see any facts contradicting what this doctor has to say, just your rhetoric and comedy videos Phage. We get it Phage, for you and many others this is hilarious...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You don't like Gilda?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You don't like Gilda?

You should be a comedian, but comedy when talking about abortion and the lies behind it is not in good taste, unless it is someone like yourself. I get it.

Now, do you, or do you not have any FACTS contradicting what this doctor has to say about third trimester abortions not being viable to save women's lives?...

a reply to: violet

This is why it is so important for the news media to stop with the editorializing and give us the news. Left, right and center. Shut up and tell us what is happening, tell us the unabridged news.

I'm ignorant and really had no idea abortions were being performed in the third trimester

No offense is interned. This is what TPTB want. People who are surprised that this or that is going on. The last thing our leaders and TPTB want are an informed and well educated public.

Keep us busy and entertained until the water is boiling.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Didn't answer my question or back up your statement...

Saying it is up to the state is not the same as saying it is protected by the constitution.

Nor answer why we should listen to this one doctor vs the others that say differently.

There are far, far too few abortions already, according to some views, like the census... but nevermind third trimester, what about post birth abortion? We already do it via the death penalty in most u.s. states.

Most of those sentenced to death could have been aborted pre birth and saved their victim's lives and the state's time and money.

Though as far as 3rd trimester abortions, they are so rare that using them as any example for any stance is just reaching.

But I'll have far, far more respect for people trying to criminalize the unpleasant necessity of abortion when they agree to adopt and raise every baby their crusade creates.

Somehow, I think my respect will stay where it is, but I hope they have a good time standing in safe judgement of folks choosing to make a difficult decision... and if they support the death penalty along with criminalizing abortion, then I would have to question their reasoning.

second opinion
ob-gyn

From a leading practioner in obstetrics, Dr Jen Gunter

" So no one is performing health of the mother abortions at 38 or 39 weeks we just do deliveries. It’s called obstetrics. "

she also said
"There are no ninth month abortions. Really. A ninth month abortion is a unicorn and so it’s ridiculous to even discuss it. Terminations after 24 weeks are for severe fetal anomalies. "

It is worth reading the link...if you have any concerns around the mistruths that are all over social media and being perpetuated by Trump's horrific mental imagery ( lies ) during the debate and also Clinton's misquotes on the subject of late term terminations.

Late term terminations of pregnancy are typically more than 21 weeks, 1.3% of abortions happen at or after 21 weeks...and 80% of these are for severe birth defects. The type of defect can range from Downs Syndrome to anomalies incompatible with life.

Options for procedure are induction of labour, or a dilation or an evacuation.

Regarding late term abortion, as most people who support the need for choice and a legal and medical provision to ensure the safety of women and children already know, there really is no "choice" to be made, instead it becomes a need.