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

a reply to: DorianSoran

maybe it's more of a question of just who do you believe should be making that choice, because I can guarantee you that when the costs of caring for those poor kids gets too burdensome for the public to bear.... the choice to institutionalize all those handicapped because of birth defects that need high cost care in places out of site, where they will be left neglected. heck, texas if already decided that helping these kids reach their full potential just isn't worth the money!!!

www.texastribune.org...

and they won't be wanting to invest any money to keep those babies with severe birth defects alive either. and it will be perfectly okay to many if the state decides the doctor has to just lay such babies aside and not provide them with any care, just let them die.

all I hear from the conservative right is how we can't afford to keep giving out the handouts. and they just want to keep cutting those programs that help the poor, so well, they seem to have no qualm of deciding to let those poor babies die of starvation! the nation just can't afford to keep feeding it, and the economy can't give the parents a decent wage...

they only have a problem when the mother has the foresight to know that she couldn't afford this child, or when told that the baby is not viable and will die soon after birth, or will require so much extra care, that she isn't qualified to give, just to live a normal life, and decide that it is better not to bring it in the world....

hell, they are happy to take the child out of the world if they find it too expensive, or in a location that happens to have some kind of strategic value to it, it is in a location that they just don't give a darn about...

they are just upset about just who gets to decide... but when push comes to shove, most assuredly, a decision will be made! only thing that is different is just how much suffering is caused by the decision.

is it fair to kick the unwanted babies to death?
you religious types don't give a sh!t what happens postpartum, and it would make some hilarious youtube videos.

originally posted by: DorianSoran

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!!!

OK, I've got no problem with saying I'm pro abortion. It's a simplification and it's more complicated however I understand where you are coming from. Exaggerations and simplifications help understanding massively so that's all good.

I'm pro-jail however that doesn't mean I encourage people to go to jail. Jail is an awful situation to be in for all involved.

But if I could ask a question to understand your position...

How do you stop women from dying slow and painful deaths doing backyard abortions?
Or do you see that as Karma?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: DorianSoran

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!!!

OK, I've got no problem with saying I'm pro abortion. It's a simplification and it's more complicated however I understand where you are coming from. Exaggerations and simplifications help understanding massively so that's all good.

I'm pro-jail however that doesn't mean I encourage people to go to jail. Jail is an awful situation to be in for all involved.

But if I could ask a question to understand your position...

How do you stop women from dying slow and painful deaths doing backyard abortions?
Or do you see that as Karma?

Not karma but policy. It should be that if you kill your kid we just kill mom too and be done with them.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

How are you going to force women to carry out full term pregnancies?.

a reply to: Sopadi

The odds are a member of your family has had an abortion..kill them also.?

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

You are really good at claiming people say things they never wrote or said... Derailing the thread much?...

Let's see here...

What the pro-choice crowd should be doing.

1st. Understand the logical conclusion that the HUMAN fetus they want to disregard has more rights than the rapists, and murderers the "pro-choice crowd want to save". Yet the "pro-choice crowds only see these HUMAN fetuses as if they were just trash they can kill and use BODY PARTS of these former Human fetus for their macabre research, and to make money.

2nd. The Murderers, and rapists that these same "pro choice crowd" want to save and give not just one chance, but chance after chance, after chance. And every time these beasts are given a chance they go back to murdering, and raping. Yet in the minds of the "pro-choice crowd" these criminals who have taken the lives of other innocent persons, and/or have raped women and children have more rights to live than the MOST INNOCENT HUMANS...

3rd. The moral compass of the "pro-choice crowd" is always pointing south, instead of to the north.

But here are the actions that the "pro-choice crowd" can take to help reduce rapes, and rape victims getting pregnant with the rapist as the father.

1. implement the death penalty for rapists, pedophiles and murderers. Heck this way you would kill three beasts with one stone.

By implementing the death penalty for rape, we will see a decrease in rapes in this country. Which would also mean less victims having to carry the baby of a rapist. Same for pedophiles and murderers.

2. Not only that, but the money that was going to be used to "fix rapists and murderers" could be used instead to help the victims. There should also be a choice that if a rape victim gets pregnant she has the choice to give her implanted egg to an infertile mother who is unable to get pregnant, but can carry the baby of the rape victim. through and embryo transfer, instead of just killing the human embryo.

There are more than plenty of women ready to receive and embryo transfer, whom otherwise would not be able to conceive a child.

3. Understand that at the third trimester the baby can feel pain, the baby can feel and reacts to the emotions of her mother and father. In fact the Human fetus is more human than the rapists and murderers that the "pro-choice crowd" want to save, instead of saving the most innocent of all.


Here is a good video that puts in perspective the situation of abortion using a similar argument made in the past against "undesirables".



Link

As for your statements about "pro-life" groups adopting children with special needs... I have already proven that the red tape implemented by progressives is stopping good parents, including many who do have the means, and the knowledge to take care of a baby with special needs, yet 7 out of 8 parents, the majority, that want to adopt are being denied.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

You are really good at claiming people say things they never wrote or said... Derailing the thread much?...

Let's see here...

What the pro-choice crowd should be doing.

1st. Understand the logical conclusion that the HUMAN fetus they want to disregard has more rights than the rapists, and murderers the "pro-choice crowd want to save". Yet the "pro-choice crowds only see these HUMAN fetuses as if they were just trash they can kill and use BODY PARTS of these former Human fetus for their macabre research, and to make money.

2nd. The Murderers, and rapists that these same "pro choice crowd" want to save and give not just one chance, but chance after chance, after chance. And every time these beasts are given a chance they go back to murdering, and raping. Yet in the minds of the "pro-choice crowd" these criminals who have take the lives of other innocent persons, and/or have raped women and children have more rights to live than the MOST INNOCENT HUMANS...

3rd. The moral compass of the "pro-choice crowd" is always pointing south, instead of to the north.

But here are the actions that the "pro-choice crowd" can take to help reduce rapes, and rape victims getting pregnant with the rapist as the father.

1. implement the death penalty for rapists, pedophiles and murderers. Heck this way you would kill three beasts with one stone.

By implementing the death penalty for rape, we will see a decrease in rapes in this country. Which would also mean less victims having to carry the baby of a rapist. Same for pedophiles and murderers.

2. Not only that, but the money that was going to be used to "fix rapists and murderers" could be used instead to help the victims. There should also be a choice that if a rape victim gets pregnant she has the choice to give her implanted egg to an infertile mother who is unable to get pregnant, but can carry the baby of the rape victim. through and embryo transfer, instead of just killing the human embryo.

There are more than plenty of women ready to receive and embryo transfer, whom otherwise would not be able to conceive a child.

3. Understand that at the third trimester the baby can feel pain, the baby can feel and reacts to the emotions of her mother and father. In fact the Human fetus is more human than the rapists and murderers that the "pro-choice crowd" want to save, instead of saving the most innocent of all.


Here is a good video that puts in perspective the situation of abortion using a similar argument made in the past against "undesirables".

Yes the criminal has more rights then an unborn baby who is not even registered in the system yet, it is pretty easy to understand why, no need to be arguing semantics here, facts are much better then opinion.

The death penalty is being banned in most states and will most likely in the US will no longer be in any state in some decade/s, also how do you instate a policy of just terminating anyone of any crime such as murder of pedophilia; Someone can be charged with murder for overacting and killing a home intruder who was RUNNING away from the victims home, should we terminate the victim who overacted and took down a home intruder who was running away?

How about a person who is charged and put on the sex offenders list for taking a leak and a child happens to walk by with his mother and they see it and report it? Or 2 13 year olds who are charged with the same pedophilia charges for getting it on or sending nudie photos to each other?

I can give other real life examples if you would like? I have many many others in my cache of real life events.

It is an extremely dangerous precedent and by reading what you write you do not seem to understand the logistics, the laws, social implications or the whole picture, you run on plain emotion only, and that is an extremely dangerous thing to do and risk turning our countries into a state like Iran or Egypt.

If a man (or woman) is accused of rape/sexual assault and is later sentenced and was found later that the "victim" made up the entire story, it is ok to terminate that person? Do I have to give you any examples of false claims that have been made in just the last month? Or the last year because it might overload the server of ATS.

Your idea about transferring an fertilized egg from a victim is null because it would require that to be done in the first 48-72 hours and it would be extremely dangerous and damaging to the fertilized egg to do, there is a difference in doing one in a lab and removing one that is already been fertilized, it is not feasible to do.

a reply to: Pardon?

It is not down to "not annoying a fictitious entity" like you claim... But to give a voice to HUMAN lives you want to disregard as if they were simply trash.

Again, I showed how your camp introduced Doe V. Bolton to overturn the decision in Roe v. Wade that there had to be serious risk to the woman's life if she were to abort on the third trimester.

Your "pro-choice camp' has a complete disregard to the most innocent human lives, and you make the same excuses that the NAZIs used to murder the "undesirables" which included people with handicaps.

The abortion debate itself was started by socialists who were in favor of eugenics, and that's what abortion is about. The only thing that has changed is that people like you have been led to believe "this gives freedom to the woman"... But freedom is not debauchery... There are rules. Otherwise an argument could be made that newborns, and babies still have no rights and have no moral status as human since they are so similar to third term human fetuses in development. Hence in this argument the parents have the right to murder their newborns for any reason, even if they are perfectly healthy. Already progressives have made such arguments.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

So "being registered in the system" is what makes people human?... What on Earth....

Cases of rape, where the evidence proves the rapist did it should be simple. But instead of killing the rapist, the "pro-choice crowd" wants to kill the innocent human fetus. As for your claim that fetus transfer is not possible and could cause problems... SO CAN ABORTION which can scar the woman and even make her unable to ever have a child...

BTW, the U.S. wouldn't turn like Iran... It would turn like in the times of Franco in Spain, I am talking in this instance about his stance on criminals and how safe the streets were made in Spain by implementing tougher measures against the worst criminals. I am not talking about his stance and response on controlling the leftists who started a war against innocents in Spain.

Ask anyone who lives now and lived during the times of Franco about safety in the streets and how few crimes happened there.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: MuonToGluon

So "being registered in the system" is what makes people human?... What on Earth....

Cases of rape, where the evidence proves the rapist did it should be simple. But instead of killing the rapist, the "pro-choice crowd" wants to kill the innocent human fetus. As for your claim that fetus transfer is not possible and could cause problems... SO CAN ABORTION which can scar the woman and even make her unable to ever have a child...

BTW, the U.S. wouldn't turn like Iran... It would turn like in the times of Franco in Spain, I am talking in this instance about his stance on criminals and how safe the streets were made in Spain by implementing tougher measures against the worst criminals. I am not talking about his stance and response on controlling the leftists who started a war against innocents in Spain.

Ask anyone who lives now and lived during the times of Franco about safety in the streets and how few crimes happened there.

You did not answer one point that I stated, not one point at all.

I am not arguing you, I am not doing semantics, I am stating how the system works NOW, I am NOT saying how the system should be.

How about answering at least one point, I gave you some points to your points but you ignored it all and spat out some irreverent useless junk like you always do.

You are just the same as your username; an Absolutely useless argument filled with BS on top of BS without understanding anything but what YOU believe.

Go and live in the Vatican, trying to speak to you is the same as presenting evidence on the subject of your username; USELESS and will get you no where.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Pardon?

It is not down to "not annoying a fictitious entity" like you claim... But to give a voice to HUMAN lives you want to disregard as if they were simply trash.

Again, I showed how your camp introduced Doe V. Bolton to overturn the decision in Roe v. Wade that there had to be serious risk to the woman's life if she were to abort on the third trimester.

Your "pro-choice camp' has a complete disregard to the most innocent human lives, and you make the same excuses that the NAZIs used to murder the "undesirables" which included people with handicaps.

The abortion debate itself was started by socialists who were in favor of eugenics, and that's what abortion is about. The only thing that has changed is that people like you have been led to believe "this gives freedom to the woman"... But freedom is not debauchery... There are rules. Otherwise an argument could be made that newborns, and babies still have no rights and have no moral status as human since they are so similar to third term human fetuses in development. Hence in this argument the parents have the right to murder their newborns for any reason, even if they are perfectly healthy. Already progressives have made such arguments.

You went full Godwin.
Never go full Godwin.
knowyourmeme.com...

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.

The abortion debate itself was started by socialists who were in favor of eugenics...

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

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.
Yes there are rules and there should always be rules, every option should be described and made available prior to termination which in the country I live in is certainly the case.
Notice though that "rules" is in the plural unlike your singular rule of no to all abortion.
That's backward.
I'm afraid your black or white fallacy is only in your mind.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: MuonToGluon

BTW, the U.S. wouldn't turn like Iran... It would turn like in the times of Franco in Spain, I am talking in this instance about his stance on criminals and how safe the streets were made in Spain by implementing tougher measures against the worst criminals. I am not talking about his stance and response on controlling the leftists who started a war against innocents in Spain.

Ask anyone who lives now and lived during the times of Franco about safety in the streets and how few crimes happened there.

Ask Russians who lived in the time of Stalin about the safety of the streets and how few crimes happened there.

You really have some twisted views don't you?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

1st. Understand the logical conclusion that the HUMAN fetus they want to disregard has more rights than the rapists, and murderers the "pro-choice crowd want to save". Yet the "pro-choice crowds only see these HUMAN fetuses as if they were just trash they can kill and use BODY PARTS of these former Human fetus for their macabre research, and to make money.

www.nbcnews.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.reuters.com...

www.nydailynews.com...

death sentences?? we seem to be lucky if we manage to get the rapists put away for a year!!!
not to mention, half the country wants to elect an alledged rapist to the supreme court!!
and, you choose to blame it on the pro-choice group??? my bet that the same people who are inclince to say a 14 year old rape victims "wanted it" are the same crowd who's tries to portray all the women who have aborted as being whores!

so now we're onto embryo transplants... as if they pertain much at all to this discussion...

Embryo transfer can be performed after various durations of embryo culture, conferring different stages in embryogenesis. The main stages at which embryo transfer is performed are cleavage stage (day 2 to 4 after co-incubation) or the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6 after co-incubation

doubt if any women would know that she is even pregnant at that stage..
and I doubt if they are gonna be transplanting fetuses!

and, I've already posted a video that debunks your "adoption is too regulated" bit....

here's another one...



how much does embryo transplants costs? how much does it cost to adopt a russian child? going through the foster systems is much cheaper. and, you get all kinds of perks for adopting someone through the foster care system, free medical for the life of the child, and support whenever you need it, at least in my area. ...

I kind of doubt that "7 out of 10" are being refused.

a reply to: dawnstar

Let's not mention that we cannot exactly transplant a fetus once its blood and oxygen (umbilical) supply is anchored inside the womb, the use of anti-rejection drugs is completely out of the picture...mmmm...a mother and the baby without an active immune system, oh wait, the baby WOULD DIE.

Chances? 100%

The OP is advocating going back to the NAZI ways of human experimentation and removing a fetus out of one woman and transplanting it into another woman because it would be better to MURDER both woman AND fetus, which I thought the OP was against.

Best.Idea.EVER

Your "pro-choice camp' has a complete disregard to the most innocent human lives, and you make the same excuses that the NAZIs used to murder the "undesirables" which included people with handicaps.

The abortion debate itself was started by socialists who were in favor of eugenics, and that's what abortion is about. The only thing that has changed is that people like you have been led to believe "this gives freedom to the woman"... But freedom is not debauchery... There are rules. Otherwise an argument could be made that newborns, and babies still have no rights and have no moral status as human since they are so similar to third term human fetuses in development. Hence in this argument the parents have the right to murder their newborns for any reason, even if they are perfectly healthy. Already progressives have made such arguments.

pre-nazi germany had one heck of an economic problem, and well that is how countries usually get out of such problems when their resources are limited, they create scapegoats, and start picking out the worthies and sending the unworthies off somewhere out of sight to die... and you are right, that is eugenics.
it wasn't the pregnant women deciding anything, it was those who saw themselves worthy of life and others, unworthy.
as in all the little jew children should be killed and that will give plenty of resources to the little blond haired blue eyed children. or that all the little third world children should be allowed to starve, while the rich corporate interests scam, blackmail, assassinate their leaders, till can just take what they want for pennies on the dollar and have more resources at their disposal to play with.
it we were practicing eugenics in this country, we would be forcing the undesirables to take birth control and forcefully aborting their babies, while we withheld birth control from those we deem as desirables and encouraging them to have more babies!

come up with a world where the resources are distributed more evenly and the world sees the poor baby in iraq as being equal than the rich with baby in the US, and congressmen aren't claiming that the world will end if we don't stop giving food stamps to the poor kids in this country and you might possibly end many of the abortions in this country. but, you will never be able to end all of them, because there is a medical need for some...

still waiting for the verdict on the jellyfish babies, are they human, deserving of all the rights granted to mom, should mom be forced to endanger her life to give birth to a jelly fish baby. should our taxdollars be used to find a way to survive in our world? should we force them to endure the many, many operations to implant an entire skeletal system in them.
there are probably just three things that are probably preventing many jellyfish babies or other such drastic deformities from prevalent in the US, the first is we aren't exposed to things like agent orange, or depleted uranium for the most part, but well, with fukishima and the numerous neclear reactors in this country who knows what the future will hold...
the second is the early use of folic acid, which guess where I got mine from when I was pregnant....
that's right, planned parenthood!
the third is the fact that we allow women to quietly abort babies that are found to have such defects..

the first thing I mention, I also mentioned just how quickly that situation could change, we could wake up tomorrow with a radiation cloud over us.
the second access to adequate healthcare, well, it's not available to everyone..
and the third is under constant assault...
so, you might want to start thinking about that question...

a reply to: MuonToGluon

I have no idea what process is gone through to do it..
but, I a pretty sure that they aren't using fetuses that are that far along in their development.

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?

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.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

What in the world are you talking about?... Embryonic transfers have been successful since 1983...

Embryonic transfer

Embryonic transfer is the moving of a fertilized egg that is between two and eight weeks old from the womb of one woman to the womb of another. The first successful human embryo transfer occurred in 1983. The transfer resulted in the birth of a live child.
...

Read more: www.discoveriesinmedicine.com...

INFERTILE WOMAN HAS BABY THROUGH EMBRYO TRANSFER
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE
Published: February 4, 1984

LONG BEACH, Calif., Feb. 3— The birth of the first baby conceived in one woman's womb and carried to birth in another's without the use of ''test tube'' fertilization was announced here today by a team of California physicians.

The baby, a boy born about two weeks ago, ''is just beautiful,'' said the team leader, Dr. John E. Buster of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine. He described the embryo transfer technique, long used in cattle but just now applied to humans, at a news conference at Long Beach Memorial Hospital. The technique does not require surgery, anesthetic or test tube fertilization of the egg, Dr. Buster said. A report of the birth appears in today's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.
...

www.nytimes.com...

Neither the baby, nor the original mother, nor the mother to whom the embryo was implanted died...

Embryonic transfer is similar to gestational surrogacy. Both have been used successfully for decades now...

I would even say that "in vitro" fertilization" of frozen eggs is more risky and increases the chances of the fetus having problems than using embryonic transfer. Transferring fresh embryo into an infertile mother should increase the chances of having a healthier child than using frozen eggs more commonly used in in vitro fertilization.