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

the title of your thread here is:


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

many have given you examples and other doctor's opinions stating the contrary of this, not for abortion in general, but also in the third trimester.

where have I diminished the people who had down's syndrome? I've only mentioned them once, and I don't think I diminished them at all. but, I also pointed out that there is some far worse birth defects...



think I admitted to you a few pages back that I was wrong on that one, although, if you included those that some would term as late term abortions, it would be closer to the truth...
but meanwhile, you are claiming that there is never any need for one, when there's at least one doctor that seems to indicate that there is rare instances where it is!!
then you go on to post articles claiming that it is never necessary the mother's health reasons....like the title of this thread says....
which, gee, doesn't seem to be true either.

there can't be an agreement between the two groups when you start and hold fast to the position that there is never any reason to abort a baby, the mother's health and wellbeing is never endangers, or no baby should ever be aborted because of medical issues with it. not unless you plan on investing alot of money into trying to save gelatinous transparent babies with no bones. which is probably unlikely here in the states, but would we actually know if a few had been aborted?

but to say that I diminished the lives of down's syndrome is really a downright lie on your part. I went to school with some, I worked with children who had the syndrome. The ones I went to school with, well, they married, had kids probably by now, and held jobs, not the greatest jobs I know of during the time that I was in contact with them, but they were jobs. so, you show me where I dimished their worth in any way.

a reply to: dawnstar

BTW, first of all the title of the thread is exactly how it is in the story. I didn't decide what title to write. Not to mention that there is evidence for my argument.

Also I have shown how the case Doe v. Bolton made it so the mother or doctor could make up any excuse, which includes "emotional state of the mother, her age, psychological and familial factors" are all seen thanks to this case as part of "the women's health. Doe v. Bolton was made to overturn the decision of Roe v. Wade that a mother on her third trimester could only get an abortion if her life was at serious risk. Yet, Doe v. Bolton made it so the mother and/or doctor could make any excuses for the woman to have an abortion even on the third trimester.

Not only that. Do you have any idea how many pregnant mothers have been told that their babies would be born with "severe brain damage" or other health problems yet they gave birth to perfectly healthy babies?...

Let's see some of these cases...

The baby saved by her mother's instinct: Doctors advised Liane to abort her 'severely brain damaged' daughter...she refused and gave birth to a perfectly healthy child

Liane and Iain Stooke were told baby Miley was brain damaged after a scan
Doctors at Frenchay Hospital suggested that they could abort her
The couple agonised over the decision and decided to give her a chance
When she was born they were shocked to be told she was actually completely healthy - and the imaging and diagnosis had been wrong

By Emma Innes

Published: 05:24 EST, 26 November 2013 | Updated: 06:30 EST, 26 November 2013

A mother says she gave birth to a perfectly healthy daughter despite doctors advising her to terminate her pregnancy because the baby was ‘brain damaged’.

Liane Stooke, 38, says it was only her mother’s instinct that saved baby Miley, two.

Mrs Stooke said: ‘We were told Miley was probably severely brain damaged and wouldn't be able to communicate with or recognise us.

‘It was a terrible decision to have to come to. We agonised over what we should do right up until the last minute.’

Mrs Stooke, and her husband Iain, 38, were delighted when they discovered they had conceived their third child.

But their joy turned to despair when an MRI scan revealed a shadow on their unborn daughter's brain.

‘The doctors said she might never walk, talk, or recognise our faces,’ said Mrs Stooke, a bank administrator. ‘It was also possible she'd be physically and facially deformed. There were a lot of unknowns.’

Although Mrs Stooke was, at 30 weeks pregnant, beyond the normal limit for abortion, doctors advised termination as an option because holoprosencephaly would prevent the child from enjoying a meaningful quality of life.
...
The couple braced themselves and Mrs Stooke delivered her daughter by Caesarean section in October 2011.

After the birth, the couple, from Bristol, were amazed to discover that, far from being physically deformed, their daughter was perfectly well.
...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Here is a picture of the baby girl that doctors claimed would be severely brain damaged, and could even be physically and facially deformed and should be aborted. Yet she was born perfectly healthy.



In the above case the doctor even told the mother when she was pregnant that her daughter would have no meaningful life and recommended abortion, but that's not the only case where this has happened.

Mother told to abort her baby defies doctors and gives birth to healthy boy

Then there is the fact that babies born with some birth defects can also be cured, even though they had considered terminating the pregnancy which would mean the doctor made that advice. But the parents decided not to terminate the pregnancy as can be seen in the case below.

One family's story: our unborn baby's birth defect

And those are not the only types of misdiagnoses done in which women are told "it is better to abort" and those women later found out the doctors were wrong...

Pregnant woman told baby was alive two weeks after being told she had suffered a miscarriage
A pregnant woman who was advised to have a termination after an NHS ultrasound indicated she had suffered a miscarriage only found out her baby was still alive after requesting another scan.

12:30PM BST 15 Aug 2011

Chelsea Muff, 32, spent two weeks grieving after a sonographer told her she had lost the child following an ultrasound scan.

But the mother-of-two requested a second scan two weeks later and her child was found to be still alive.

She has now told how she is trying to cope with the knowledge that she could have inadvertently terminated the baby.

Now almost four months pregnant, Miss Muff, mother to 14-year-old Corey and 11-year-old Destiny, said: "She said there was an empty sac – she said it had gone. I was shocked and upset.
...

Pregnant woman told baby was alive two weeks after being told she had suffered a miscarriage


Study: Viable pregnancies may be getting misdiagnosed as miscarriages

I could keep going, and there are many such cases, but the above cases proves my arguments are valid.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

By email, Smith said a physician could lose her or his license to practice or face criminal charges if the judgment that an abortion was needed to protect the woman’s health was later found inappropriate.

"Physicians do not take these significant potential penalties lightly," Smith wrote, which she said partly explains the rarity of late-term abortions. "The other reason is that women don't just wake up one day after carrying a pregnancy for six months or more and decide to end it unless there is something really wrong with them," Smith said.

www.politifact.com...

so because some, but not all, doctors might lie or take a too liberal assessment of what is necessary to the health and well being of the mother, and because some, but not all doctors might misdiagnosed the extent of a birth defect, then, we should ban all abortions!!!

that seems to be what you are saying, again, going back to the nope, no abortions, no exceptions...
and so you see clinton as saying that she thinks anyone who wants an abortion days away from birth should be able to have it....
while even she has said that she would support restrictions on late term abortions as long as they had exemptions for the mothers health!!

a reply to: dawnstar


Wow...first you claim that most abortions on the third trimester are to save a woman's life, which is false. Then you go off on a tangent and try to derail the threat talking about "catholic hospitals and what happens in Brazil"... Then you claim "but third trimester abortions are done because the fetus has deformities, and health problems such as down syndrome, or severe brain damage"... i show evidence of misdiagnosed cases in which pregnant women were told their babies had deformities, or severe health problems such as brain damage, yet these babies were born perfectly healthy, and now you want to assume that it only happens to some cases and that as such it is still more than okay to seek an abortion during the third trimester even thou at that time an abortion would cause more problems for the mother, not to mention killing the infant?... You keep on changing your argument every time your argument is shown to be flawed or false.

BTW, show where I ever wrote "ban all abortions". I do disagree with abortion, but never have said, or written "ban abortion". My argument is whether abortion is truly necessary during the third trimester, when all evidence says it is not. There are parents who would be more than happy to adopt babies even with serious health problems, but the red tape, I wonder who implemented such red tape in adoptions, stops 7 out of 8 parents from adopting who otherwise are ideal candidates.

Abortion has often saved the lives of women by not tying them down for the rest of their lives with the kid of somebody they don't know or don't like.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Abortion has often saved the lives of women by not tying them down for the rest of their lives with the kid of somebody they don't know or don't like.

First, that's not saving a life... Second, you think abortion is going to take away the psychological scarring left by rapists?... Neither the woman nor the child are the party at fault... Your response is to terminate the life of an innocent human who did not commit the crime of rape.

I am almost certain your response would not be to "terminate the life of the rapist" which would be the only person that truly deserves death in cases of rape.

Again, adoption is a more viable solution. I can understand giving an abortion to a child that has been raped, even if I disagree with it. But grown women should be grown up enough to understand that it is not the fault of the baby.

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'll put this story here www.motherjones.com...

2nd pregnancy...they wanted the child...they saw on the news that the late term abortion dr was killed..she couldn't imagine why anyone would have a late term abortion....then she found out the child she was carring had severe brain abnormalities that don't show up until later......the child would have constant untreatable seizures or be a vegetable..

they went through hell...had to go to another state to terminate,,,,read the story at the link

Did you miss the part where I said

I will acknowledge there is a time and a place for a medically necessary abortion. Things happen. Biology is a wacky bell curve and sh#t happens.

If there are abnormalities that will inhibit the child's development and cannot be corrected in utero, there is an argument to be made that the parents have a compelling interest in what is best for the child. If the child is healthy, that is a separate issue.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

If there are abnormalities that will inhibit the child's development and cannot be corrected in utero, there is an argument to be made that the parents have a compelling interest in what is best for the child. If the child is healthy, that is a separate issue.

But what happens when doctors misdiagnose abnormalities, and severe health defects on human fetuses, like those cases i showed, and the parents decide to abort what could be a fully healthy child?

There are children that were/are misdiagnosed even with severe brain damage and the doctors made the advice to abort, yet when the parents gave birth the child was normal.

What happens if children are misdiagnosed with being born completely healthy, the parents go ahead and deliver the baby but then when those babies are born they actually have severe health problems? An argument could be made, such as that made by Singer among other progressive philosophers and doctors, that a newborn baby born with deformities, and health problems should also be allowed to be killed by the parents. When is a line drawn on when a child/human fetus has the "right to live"?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

If there are abnormalities that will inhibit the child's development and cannot be corrected in utero, there is an argument to be made that the parents have a compelling interest in what is best for the child. If the child is healthy, that is a separate issue.

But what happens when doctors misdiagnose abnormalities, and severe health defects on human fetuses, like those cases i showed, and the parents decide to abort what could be a fully healthy child?

There are children that were/are misdiagnosed even with severe brain damage and the doctors made the advice to abort, yet when the parents gave birth the child was normal.

What happens if children are misdiagnosed with being born completely healthy, the parents go ahead and deliver the baby but then when those babies are born they actually have severe health problems? An argument could be made, such as that made by Singer among other progressive philosophers and doctors, that a newborn baby born with deformities, and health problems should also be allowed to be killed by the parents. When is a line drawn on when a child/human fetus has the "right to live"?

It's tragic, but mistakes happen. Doctors are human too.

One of my coworkers had the second scenario you mentioned. She thought her second son would be a healthy boy, instead he was born with heart disfigurement and water on the brain. He is now 5 years old and will never progress beyond the mind of a 2 year old. When he gets upset he holds his breath until he passes out, and sometimes his heart momentarily stops. He cannot walk, he stays in a wheelchair. He has undergone more surgeries in 5 years than most people do in 50.

What would his parents have done if they knew beforehand? I don't know. If the doctors had diagnosed correctly, they probably could have mitigated the damage.

But when he was born they embraced him and have given him all the love they have equal to their first and third sons.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

and what if there was no way for them to afford those many surgeries? do they have sleepless nights wondering who will take care of their child when they are too old to be able to care for him?
I ain't saying if they did have the knowledge that had now, it would be wrong to give him a chance, it's just that it should be their choice to undertake such a task.

I have a neighbor that had about five or six kids, with the last one born a preemie with some pretty major problems. they found that the only way they could have this little baby's special health care taken care of was to separate, and mom and the kids be on welfare. so, that's one marriage broken up, five or six kids living without their father in the picture, one mom taking on the problems alone, and a child who will probably spend more of his life in the hospital that out of it....
weather or not she knew there would be a problem with this child before it was born, I don't know. weather or not she would have aborted it if she did, I don't know. quite frankly, it's not any of my business to know. my business is to see that mom struggling with daily life and try to help her out any way I could, without judgement or condemnation. in the end, how people handle these kinds of challenges in their lives should be their decision and no one elses.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Yes, doctors are humans, but we are talking about deciding the lives of other human beings based on what can be wrong diagnosis. Not to mention that many progressives have already laid the groundwork for the use of "abortion on the third trimester" as an excuse to also excuse "after birth abortion", or to make legal the murder of newborn babies, even if they are perfectly healthy.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

first you can't say that it is riskier for the mother to abort than it is to carry to term and be accurate 100% or the time.
second, you totally discount the toll that emotions and stress would cause the parents as they watch a baby suffer endless days from severe birth defects or as they worry about who will take care of their adult "baby" when they get to the point where they are unable to.
third, you insult the mother's intelligence that she wouldn't at least get a second opinion before traveling halfway across the country and shelling out $15,000 or more for the procedure.
fourth, you have yet to find a post where I claimed that the life of the mother was the main reason for third trimester abortions, although you might find one where I say that late term abortions are done to preserve the health and well being of them mother in the two threads. I focus my attention on those abortions because out of all of the abortions that are being done, those are the ones that I believe cannot be denied if there is any justice in this world.
and, I also know how that often, the pro-life crowd will come out with much the same argument as you have when confronted with those cases...
there's not that many..... doesn't really matter if you happen to be one of those cases does it...
well, I'd gladly give my life for my child..... well, that's great, you are free to do that, but you can't assume every other women is gonna feel the same way. they might just have more concern about their living breathing children who just might want mommy to hang around at least long enough for them to be able to dress and feed themselves.
the doctors are just lying, it's too easy for the women to get a medical reason..... doesn't change the fact that there are times when the doctors aren't lying.....

and, well, when you look at those catholic hospitals with their "religious" rules governing them, as well as those countries that have strict laws regarding abortion, you find that they won't even intervene when the women is miscarrying and the baby is doomed anyways, or when there a tubal pregnancy, which can never end up with a happy baby!

I have three sons, one of them I was told when he was a baby had cystic fibrosis, he didn't, I was told he would be retarded, he isn't. another son had a series of grand mall seizures when he was young...
the first one I was told that it was a drug overdose, it wasn't. the second one was supposedly from a fever....
but ya know what, he is still plagued with petit mal seizures. I told the doctors that they were happening, his teachers said it was happening in school, I told them that the conditions that seemed to be present when they occurred even... to no avail, they are still undiagnosed, but if you put him in a situation that is chaotic, he will drift off and not be there for a few minutes. doctors make mistakes, and it doesn't help if you don't have the financial means to keep going back to you have the answers. as a parent you just have to make your decisions and take those actions that you are able to and pray for the best. in my case, I learned how to keep the chaos out of his life as much as possible... but if they ever decided to draft him and send him off to war, I would sell everything I own, take out as many loans as I could, and ship him off to another country!!! because, I am probably the only one who knows that if you gave him a gun and put him into such a situation things just wouldn't turn out well.

so, yes, I know the doctors aren't always right. but at the moment they are the best we have.

if you look in history, to the time when we didn't have tests to diagnose these fetal problems, or if you look to other countries where they forbid abortions, you really find that your "oh, there's plenty of people who would be willing to adopt these kids" is so, so wrong!! even now in this country, there are many kids that are adoptable, not perfect kids mind you, they might have a few health problems, they might need some tender loving care... for the rest of their lives... but they could be adopted, and really, I don't think that they aren't because of the regulations on adoption. not when the you consider that hassle that is involve in importing your perfect adopted kids from halfway around the world!
right now, the foster care system, although not great really, is able to handle these unwanted children. we are able to give them the healthcare, and special education so that they can at least reach their potential. but would it be able to if you added all those unwanted kids, all those special needs kids that abortion is preventing from entering the world? I kind of don't think so, and you know what, I am pretty sure that all those "compassionate conservatives" wouldn't want to pay for it too long before they start screaming to bring back the hell holes of institutions where the kids will either be exploited or left to vegetate their lives away. and if that ever happened, all those down syndrome babies that you are so proud of, well, they wouldn't be doing so great without their early intervention programs and early learning, and such.

For the third time op do you want to make it illegal because all I hear from you is berating women calling them murderers....no solutions as usual.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Yes, there are a lot of variables - not infinite though - and I believe that the law regarding abortion should be created around those variables. Money should not be one of them, money is a man made concept and killing anything for a man-made concept is murder.

I would just like to live in a world where people don't kill their own children because they were lazy.
The vast majority of abortions are happening because people are lazy/stupid. Isn't that sad?

Lazy? Stupid? WhereTF to you get that insight? Money should not be a variable to consider? Are you kidding?

Maybe a woman used birth control and it didn't work. How does that make her lazy or stupid? Did you know that antibiotics can sometimes negate the effects of birth control pills? Maybe a married couple already has 3 kids and know they couldn't possibly afford another one. The wife AND husband make the decision to abort. How is that lazy or stupid? Did you know that childcare is roughly $200 PER WEEK? So, a single mom would have to pay $800 per month just to be able to work. Government assistance is piss poor and basically does just enough to keep you AT the poverty level, never above it. Millions of dollars of child support owed go uncollected. What if the mother is in an abusive relationship? Is it lazy or stupid to NOT want to bring a child into that?

And please don't EVEN try to throw out the 'just have the baby and give it away' like 'just go down to Starbucks and pick me up a latte'. Pregnancy is a HUGE deal and changes your body permanently. And it's not so easy just to 'give' a baby away.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

A lot of the pro 'lifers' on ATS are of the opinion that women who choose to abort are
1. dirty whores who need to keep their legs closed
2. evil selfish murderers who kill babies for sport
3. lazy and stupid (thanks GreenGunther)
4. fetus is found to have serious defects? You're a heartless POS if you choose not to bring a child into that existence. And you're selfish if you don't agree to devote 30 years of your life 24/7 taking care of a special needs individual.

Their solutions?
1. just have the baby and give it away, no biggie!
2. even though you were raped and every day of your pregnancy reminds you of how it came to be...just keep it and love it!
3. don't get pregnant in the first place you stupid whore
4. vacuuming out a clump of cells is exactly the same as murdering a newborn baby....MURDER! I tell you
5. the government has no place teaching sex ed
6. the government has no place paying for birth control
7. the government has no place paying for your accidental baby, you stupid whore
8. men shouldn't have to pay child support because they had no say in whether or not the woman keeps the baby

To the pro-'life'ers on here (and the pro-choicers) here's some suggestions if you REALLY care about life:

1. Become a foster parent for CPS
2. Adopt a child though CPS, especially a special needs child because no one wants them- 7 yo non verbal, bed ridden, fed by feeding tube, diapers and turning every 2 hours etc.
3. Contact your representative and demand expansion of programs like Early Head Start. My son has been on a waiting list for months, as are dozens of other children. WhyTF don't they expand it so any kid that wants to go, can?
4. Volunteer at your local homeless shelter.
5. Volunteer at your local food bank. Donate to your local food bank.
6. Donate diapers and clothing to your local pregnancy crisis center. Pregnancy Crisis Center List
7. Volunteer to help kids read. You can specifically request foster kids.
8. Volunteer at a suicide helpline.
9. Donate to Planned Parenthood. They offer affordable birth control.
10. Contact your representative and demand free IUD's given to any woman who wants one. (35% drop in abortions, 40% drop in teen pregnancies)
11. Visit nursing homes and visit with the residents.
12. Visit group homes for special needs folks and visit with them. Participate in activities for them.
13. Volunteer with Hospice care.
14. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity
15. Volunteer at your local community center.
16. Raise money and supplies for disaster relief.
17. Volunteer with the big brother/big sister program.
18. Volunteer with Meals on Wheels.
19. Create care packages for homeless shelters: hygiene products, pens and a notebook, gender neutral daily supplies
20. Donate children's books and toys to children's hospitals and homeless shelters that allow children.
21. Organize an outing for children in homeless shelters. Pay to take them all to the zoo for a day.
22. Donate art supplies to your local homeless shelter and children's hospital.
23. Buy a bunch of underwear in all different sizes to donate to your local homeless shelter.
24. Organize a trash clean up in your community. Or just get out there yourself and pick up some trash.
25. Create a community garden. Invite families with children in the area to participate.
26.

Well Scout-y poo is up and fussing so I've got to go stick a baby on my boob. You get the idea. These 25 suggestions should be enough to keep y'all busy for a while. Ya know...if you REALLY care about life.

a reply to: dawnstar

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
but, although purely fictitious in nature, the idea of babies being "ripped from mommy's womb" to be murdered the day before birth seems to be effective in drumming up the support to ban late term abortions...
only, these abortions are very rare, hard to get even when medically necessary, and in many cases... ARE MEDICALLY NECESSARY!
by throwing out such nonsense as the ripping out the babies and such, while ignoring that very important fact that these aren't routine proceedures done willy nilly, and in many states can only legally occur in only a few circumstance.....one being the health and wellbeing of the mother, it become very clear that the women's life isn't valued as highly as that of the unborn child she carries. although I am sure that the women's children, her husband, her parents, might feel quite differently about that...
...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
but, the one circumstance that there shouldn't be any disagreement as far as being a valid reason for an abortion would be when the mother's health and life are in jeopardy!!! when hillary clinton was asked that question about third trimester abortion in the debate, she points out that first, there is very few of them, and for those there are, they are usually surrounded by some really crappy circumstance that the mother would prefer didn't exist. I mean, if they didn't want the baby to begin with, they wouldn't have waited to the third trimester when it's just as dangerous to abort the child than it is to finish the pregnancy in most cases. these are the cases where abortion is truly and undebatable, women's healthcare issues most of the times, the other times is when there is terrible problems with the baby and it's prognosis is bleak. or maybe both situations exist.
I think what clinton was saying was that any law designed to regulate or restrict abortion access has to still protect the life and health of the mother, even in the last few days of her pregnancy...
...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In that same thread you claimed that aborting a baby on the due date is the same as a C-section... That's how far you have twisted your argument to fit your narrative...

In the Dublin declaration, over 1,000 experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology describe how abortion is not necessary to save a woman's life.

Dublin Declaration

OVER 1013 signatures so far. Sign Today!

DUBLIN DECLARATION ON MATERNAL HEALTHCARE
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

www.dublindeclaration.com...

i showed how progressives have overturned Roe v.Wade with the case Doe v. Bolton, in which a pregnant woman, and/or her doctor could make any excuse to abort and call it "health risk for the mother". These excuses include the woman's physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age.

...
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
...

www.usccb.org...

Roe v. Wade made it so in the third trimester only real risks to the mother's life is an acceptable excuse for abortion, but the states can decide because at that stage the human fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. But Doe v. Bolton changed it so any excuse could be used to perform late term abortions.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: dawnstar

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
but, although purely fictitious in nature, the idea of babies being "ripped from mommy's womb" to be murdered the day before birth seems to be effective in drumming up the support to ban late term abortions...
only, these abortions are very rare, hard to get even when medically necessary, and in many cases... ARE MEDICALLY NECESSARY!
by throwing out such nonsense as the ripping out the babies and such, while ignoring that very important fact that these aren't routine proceedures done willy nilly, and in many states can only legally occur in only a few circumstance.....one being the health and wellbeing of the mother, it become very clear that the women's life isn't valued as highly as that of the unborn child she carries. although I am sure that the women's children, her husband, her parents, might feel quite differently about that...
...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
but, the one circumstance that there shouldn't be any disagreement as far as being a valid reason for an abortion would be when the mother's health and life are in jeopardy!!! when hillary clinton was asked that question about third trimester abortion in the debate, she points out that first, there is very few of them, and for those there are, they are usually surrounded by some really crappy circumstance that the mother would prefer didn't exist. I mean, if they didn't want the baby to begin with, they wouldn't have waited to the third trimester when it's just as dangerous to abort the child than it is to finish the pregnancy in most cases. these are the cases where abortion is truly and undebatable, women's healthcare issues most of the times, the other times is when there is terrible problems with the baby and it's prognosis is bleak. or maybe both situations exist.
I think what clinton was saying was that any law designed to regulate or restrict abortion access has to still protect the life and health of the mother, even in the last few days of her pregnancy...
...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In that same thread you claimed that aborting a baby on the due date is the same as a C-section... That's how far you have twisted your argument to fit your narrative...

In the Dublin declaration, over 1,000 experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology describe how abortion is not necessary to save a woman's life.

Dublin Declaration

OVER 1013 signatures so far. Sign Today!

DUBLIN DECLARATION ON MATERNAL HEALTHCARE
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

www.dublindeclaration.com...

i showed how progressives have overturned Roe v.Wade with the case Doe v. Bolton, in which a pregnant woman, and/or her doctor could make any excuse to abort and call it "health risk for the mother". These excuses include the woman's physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age.

...
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
...

www.usccb.org...

Roe v. Wade made it so in the third trimester only real risks to the mother's life is an acceptable excuse for abortion, but the states can decide because at that stage the human fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. But Doe v. Bolton changed it so any excuse could be used to perform late term abortions.

The vast majority, if not all of the medical professionals who have signed the Dublin Declaration are Catholics.
To me, that points more to a religious belief directing them than science itself.

Ask Savita Halappanavar's family what they think.
Or Diane Hodger's family.
Or hundred's of other families.

Ireland's pretty backwards when it comes to abortion and that is 100% down to the Catholic church's influence there.
It's not that they care for the mother nor the foetus at all.
They don't wish to annoy a fictitious entity.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

EDIT: I've just noticed this case too.
"PP v. HSE

In December 2014, a woman who was declared brain dead was artificially kept alive against her family's wishes as the foetus she was carrying still had a heartbeat. She had been hospitalised initially, prior to a fall, for a cyst in her brain. In PP v. HSE, a three-judge panel of the High Court ruled on 26 December 2014, in a 29-page decision, that all life support should end. The court accepted the experts testimony that the foetus could not survive the extra two months required for a viable delivery. The legal and constitutional question, since the mother was already ruled clinically dead, was whether the foetus had any chance of being born alive. It was still unsettled as to how the Irish courts would rule in the future if a woman was brain dead and her foetus had a much better chance at being born alive, if it was much closer to the point of viability.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, had stated that he would not object, since the mother was clinically dead and the fetus had no chance for survival; the Church had questioned why Ireland had not come up with more specific guidelines, specifically for these types of situations where the woman is ruled brain dead and the fetus cannot survive. The Department of Health was to examine the ruling; both sides indicated they would accept the ruling and would not appeal to the Supreme Court, which had been on standby. Life support machines were disconnected on Friday, 26 December 2014."

What on earth has anything to do with this case got to do with an archbishop?
We are in the 21st century, religion should have nothing to do with medical care.

Thankfully, this year this happened.
UN Says Ireland's Abortion Ban Is ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading’
humanrights.ie...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

in your second example, I am discussing south carolina's law, which the only exemption they give is the live of the mother, so I am assuming that any third term abortions that are occuring in south carolina is because the life of the mother is at risk...since any others would be illegal?? but, what I am really discussing here if the fact that the south carolina lawmakers who wrote this law just had to throw in another requirement before the life of this mother could be save....
which is her husband's permission.....

which leave us with this statement I made...

these are the cases where abortion is truly and undebatable, women's healthcare issues most of the times, the other times is when there is terrible problems with the baby and it's prognosis is bleak. or maybe both situations exist.

which I already explained, was a matter of how I was defining late term/third trimester abortions. and, I've conceded that point to you, although you keep wishing to go back to it... never the less, your claim that third trimester abortions are never for the health or life of the mother has also been proven to be untrue...

so then you go back to the, abortions are never needed to save the life of the mother proclamation made by the doctors of Ireland, whose own citizens have proven a few times the statement isn't true by dying on them!!!

and then you go on to question the doctor's judgement on weather or not the abortion is necessary, well, if you don't trust the doctor's judgement, just who's do you trust? it seems the doctors are the best ones to make such a judgement. and, let me ask you something.... I usually do mention the health of the mother along with the life where you only mention the life and seem to disagree that there is ever any need for it then... so, do you think that women who probably won't die but will be left with life long disabilities and health problems shouldn't be exempted also?

as for you idea that there are plenty of people who would be willing to adopt all these babies, even the severely disabled ones born with birth defects if only there wasn't such strict regulations on adoption...
well, I looked into it. there seems to be what looks like between 50-100 children that are adoptable now in my area. no, they aren't you perfect little babies, but they are adoptable.

and well, it doesn't sound like it's that much of a hassle, having your own sounds like it would be harder...



and according that video, hey it could be cost free.... and yet, we have americans spending alot more importing their perfect little babies...

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

We are pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

WRONG, WRONG and WRONG. One in the same....PERIOD!!!

Dorian Soran v2.0