Catholic Nun Perfectly Explains the Hypocrisy of the "Pro-Life" Argument

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler



I said no such thing. Constitutional rights extend to all person's born that happen to be within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Constitution doesn't allow people to indiscriminately kill foreigners.

You quoted the beginning of the 14th amendment to say the unborn doesn't have rights for the constitution, so therefore even if all science would say a 9 month term baby is a life, they are not protected by the Constitution.

Here s the beginning of the amendment, which you partially quoted.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

en.wikipedia.org...

So its says born IN the untied states. Its not making a comment about only people born have rights, its just saying people born IN The United states are citizens and are protected by the constitution of the US. So if your argument is that this amendment proves the constitution allows for the termination of a 9 month term baby because they are not BORN, it would also not apply to anyone not BORN IN the US, hence a foreigner.

Perhaps Dr. Gosnell was a lazy abortionist, I don't know, but he wasn't convicted of performing illegal abortions. Kermit Gosnell was euthanizing new borns that survived botched late term abortions, legal abortions of fetuses with dire prognosis's due to fetal anomalies in which the fetus was "incompatible with life". When this happens in a hospital, because the situation is so dire that the women would die while waiting for her fetus to die, so a life birth happens before fetal death occurs, those infant are left to languish until they die naturally. Euthanasia is illegal.

Kermit Gosnell was not offering late term abortions to women who changed their mind at 9 months. It's easier and safer to give birth then to abort at that stage. No doctor would do it. No hospital would approve it. No insurance would cover it.

Gosnell was charged with late term abortions, in addition to murdering just born babies. Look your argument was that no doctor would ethically give a nine month abortion. Clearly this man would.

Or is it your claim that Gosnell who had no problem with killing babies AFTER they would born would say "Oh no aborting a nine month term baby would be unethical to me. Now killing a baby already born, that is ethical." Surely yo can see Gosnell would have given a nine month term abortion.

Not by my reckoning. People are saying that government shouldn't come between a woman, her doctor and/or her family'.

Right, and it was clarified when I asked, as any human being that is even remotely reasonable can see, that Annee clarified that yes, this means that if a woman wants a nine month term abortion, no one has any right to have any say about it.

How can you be for this?

a reply to: Annee

I agree with you, just like they tell women it's their fault they should have chosen a better men, men should be told they should have chosen the right woman.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I'm generally pro-choice (I say "generally" because I don't think the issue is as simple as "it's the woman's choice to do what she wants with her body")...

However, in response to your statement "So the woman is the one who should decide what happens with her body and her future", it could be argued that she made the decision about her future when she allowed herself to become pregnant (or didn't try hard enough to prevent pregnancy in the first place).

By personal experience I can tell you that even with all the correct precaution you can still get pregnant, in my case we had two boys and I did not want another child. I was devastated when I found out I got pregnant anyway... she is now 13 and the light of my life. I am actually really happy that the contraception failed, as my girl is a blessing, but it doesn't work so for everybody.

My point is: many pregnancies happen even when you do everything right to prevent it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.

Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked

The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?

She replied.

No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?

Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?

I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them

It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.

Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.

The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.

Agreed regarding the constitution and slavery.....but the law does offer some protection to the unborn

Unborn victims of violence

Is that law really Constitutional? A lot of laws have been shot down or changed over the last 20 years as being unconstitutional.

But, that law addresses injury or death by accident at the hands of someone else.

No choice involved.

Thats a question best left to the experts,....I can't really say one way or another...

If you are injured or killed by an outside force.

It is not your choice. It is their fault. They have taken life from you.

Now wait a minute. You claimed that it is not a life until born.

So if a person punches you in the stomach and your fetus dies, according to you that fetus wasn't a life. So the person could be charged with assual, and perhaps destruction of property.

It seems you are literally trying to make the argument that the woman CHOSES when the fetus is a life.

If a woman wants to abort the fetus at 9 months as you say she should be allowe ot do, she is saying its not a life.

But if a person harms her and that fetus dies, she gets to CHOSE to now say it is a life.

Thats not how it works. Its either a life or it isn't.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

It is illegal to own another person or their body. That's slavery.

Legislating a woman's body and reproduction is slavery. It should not be legal.

Let me know when mandatory paternal DNA testing becomes law. And work camps are built where all paychecks go to the abandoned child.

Today the woman is 100% responsible for that "potential life". There are no laws that protect her from not being so. Even the decision to give it up for adoption or turn it over to Child Services.

It's still the woman's fault 100% - - - let me know when it becomes 50%.

BTW - - I do not support late term abortion. Which is completely separate from legislating a woman's body and reproduction.

a reply to: Grambler

How did Gosnell kill the just-born babies? Did he administer a euthanasia injection or did was it by some violent means?

Also, what is partial birth abortion? Is that just another name for late-term abortion? Is it still legal?!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.

Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked

The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?

She replied.

No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?

Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?

I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them

It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.

Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.

The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.

Agreed regarding the constitution and slavery.....but the law does offer some protection to the unborn

Unborn victims of violence

Is that law really Constitutional? A lot of laws have been shot down or changed over the last 20 years as being unconstitutional.

But, that law addresses injury or death by accident at the hands of someone else.

No choice involved.

Thats a question best left to the experts,....I can't really say one way or another...

If you are injured or killed by an outside force.

It is not your choice. It is their fault. They have taken life from you.

Now wait a minute. You claimed that it is not a life until born.

Sorry, if you can't understand the difference between a woman's choice and someone taking that choice from her.

a reply to: Grambler

So its says born IN the untied states. Its not making a comment about only people born have rights, its just saying people born IN The United states are citizens and are protected by the constitution of the US. So if your argument is that this amendment proves the constitution allows for the termination of a 9 month term baby because they are not BORN, it would also not apply to anyone not BORN IN the US, hence a foreigner.

Oh for Christ's sake! Your straw man argument is so desperate. The fact is, the unborn are not protected by the US Constitution. Foreigners are.

Gosnell was charged with late term abortions, in addition to murdering just born babies.

No he wasn't. Late term abortions aren't illegal, they're regulated. He was not convicted of performing illegal abortions.

Kermit Barron Gosnell is an American former abortion-provider who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures.
en.wikipedia.org...

Or is it your claim that Gosnell who had no problem with killing babies AFTER they would born would say "Oh no aborting a nine month old baby would be unethical to me. Now killing a baby already born, that is ethical." Surely yo can see Gosnell would have given a nine month term abortion.

There are legal and compelling reasons why women require late term abortions. You faux outrage comes from ignorance.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: AnkhMorpork



BTW - - I do not support late term abortion. Which is completely separate from legislating a woman's body and reproduction.

You clearly stated all through this thread, when specifically asked if you thought that a 9 month term abortions that

No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?

Now you are backtracking, saying you are against late term abortions, and somehow that is different than legislating reproduction.

Fine, I am glad you are back tracking, because advocating that women should be allowed to terminate 9 month terms babies is monstrous. .

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler


Oh for Christ's sake! Your straw man argument is so desperate. The fact is, the unborn are not protected by the US Constitution. Foreigners are.

Show me the passage where it says foreigners are protected by the constitution.

No he wasn't. Late term abortions aren't illegal, they're regulated. He was not convicted of performing illegal abortions.

Wrong again.

In total, Gosnell was found guilty of 21 out of 24 felony counts of illegal abortions beyond the 24 week limit and found guilty on all but 16 of 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.

One local reporter covering the trial indicated Gosnell “heard verdict passively, with small bitter faced smiles.” A Fox news reporter added, “Our Fox producer in the courtroom says Gosnell looked mad when the verdicts were read.”

www.lifenews.com...

There are legal and compelling reason why women require late term abortions. You faux outrage comes from ignorance.

I have no problem with those cases, as I have said all along. I have a problem with people on this thread saying women SHOULD be allowed to have 9 month term abortions for whatever reasons.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

It is illegal to own another person or their body. That's slavery.

Legislating a woman's body and reproduction is slavery. It should not be legal.

Maybe it should not be viewed as slavery.....maybe a better comparison would be illicit drug consumption.....its your body, but the govt says what you can or can't do with it in a specific manner....but in no way is it implying that the govt has ownership over you....just a thought

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.

Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked

The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?

She replied.

No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?

Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?

I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them

It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.

Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.

The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.

Agreed regarding the constitution and slavery.....but the law does offer some protection to the unborn

Unborn victims of violence

Is that law really Constitutional? A lot of laws have been shot down or changed over the last 20 years as being unconstitutional.

But, that law addresses injury or death by accident at the hands of someone else.

No choice involved.

Thats a question best left to the experts,....I can't really say one way or another...

If you are injured or killed by an outside force.

It is not your choice. It is their fault. They have taken life from you.

Now wait a minute. You claimed that it is not a life until born.

Sorry, if you can't understand the difference between a woman's choice and someone taking that choice from her.

No I do. In fact I think a person who through violence causes a woman to lose her child or fetus or whatever language you want to use should be convicted of murder regardless of the term. A person has no right to take that away from the mother.

And I also feel that a woman has the right to decide to abort up until that fetus is deemed viable. I am not educated enough to know at what point viability occurs though, and I am open to hearing all opinions on that.

(However, 9 months which you are defending is certainly a life)

My point is you made it quite clear when you gave us your beliefs that you do not consider it a life UNTIL it draws breath. So under your beliefs, a person that causes a woman a miscarriage didn't take a life, they merely damaged the womans property. You (and me) would still say that this is unjustified and a crime, but you can't say that thos person took a life.

a reply to: Annee

Does this supercede the rights of the unborn?

It would be much better to use science to draw a line (I say the 49th day) while making abortion and contraceptives free as part of some universal healthcare provision, with enhanced sex education in school, so that every woman understands everything she needs to know, and how to check to make sure within that 48 day window.

It's a heavy burden of law to place upon women, but just stop and think it all the way through from the POV of individual human rights including the rights of the unborn.

For those who miss it, and have to bear the burden of carrying to term, again, free health care for the duration, and where the final decision regarding keeping the baby and raising it or giving it away for adoption could be ratified say three days after birth if she changes her mind after having the baby (a spiritual experience in and of itself).

For woman to say that no such line can be drawn at any time during the pregnancy simply because her body cannot be legislated or forced to endure the hardship of child birth, I don't think makes a powerful enough argument relative to the rights and freedoms of the most defenseless among us. While the baby may be part of her body, at some point it should have it's own rights and protections from harm or in the case of abortion, premature death.

There's a little person in there waiting to be born.

Hmm, I think I just finally talked myself into being a pro-lifer, but with very carefully crafted provisions, which do place a burden on the woman to make every effort not to get pregnant if she doesn't want to, and that if she conceives, to detect it and abort it within the timeframe as outlined legally.

As a society, we could just take this on, with the rights and freedoms of the unborn ever in our hearts and minds.

A month or a month and a half, just to check to see if there was a conception, is enough time, and, the whole service surrounding it would have to be covered by a universal single payer health care system and lots and lots of education.

Makes unprotected sex just all the more riskier I suppose, but we do have the morning after pill, pregnancy tests, and the capability to abort the pregnancy (no doubt about that).

Just think of the lives saved...

And think about the implications of abortion as it stands right now. Is that the basis for a truly civil society who offers no protection for the unborn and where the line drawn is arbitrarily?

We really need to re-think this and think it all the way through.

And what a pressing and urgent issue.. of another I can't think of one.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Grambler

How did Gosnell kill the just-born babies? Did he administer a euthanasia injection or did was it by some violent means?

Also, what is partial birth abortion? Is that just another name for late-term abortion? Is it still legal?!

Gosnell was a monster. Here is how he killed the born babies.

A was the biggest baby that Kareema Cross had ever seen delivered at Gosnell’s abortion “House of Horrors” clinic in the four years she worked there. He was delivered to 17-year old Shaquana Abrams at 29.4 weeks gestation, according to an ultrasound record. Baby Boy A was so large, he did not fit into the plastic shoe box that Gosnell tossed him in. Cross said she saw the baby pull in his arms and legs while Gosnell explained the movements as “reflexes” telling her the baby really didn’t move prior to cutting the baby’s neck. Baby Boy A was so large, Gosnell joked that “this baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

Baby C was an intact baby of over 25-weeks gestation. Kareema Cross testified that she saw Baby C breathing and described the up and down chest movements she observed for 20 minutes. She told the court she saw Lynda Williams lift the baby’s arm and watched as the newborn drew it back on its own power. Afterwards, Williams inserted surgical scissors into the baby’s neck and “snipped” the spinal cord. Gosnell was said to be in the room at the time.

www.lifenews.com...

As far as partial birth, I am not sure of the exact definition but I think people use it to mean late term abortions. The laws vary state to state, I think in PA where Gosnell was charged 24 weeks was the latest you could abort.

a reply to: Grambler

I stand corrected. But it is still true that late term abortions are not illegal, they're regulated, from state to state, according to Roe V Wade, which I'm happy to support. Gosnell clearly broke the law and I'm not defending him.

I have a problem with people on this thread saying women SHOULD be allowed to have 9 month term abortions for whatever reasons.

No one is saying that! We are saying that women, their doctors and their families shouldn't have to run those reasons by you or the government.

a reply to: Grambler

That was so horrific.

But it makes a point.

We've got to look at this issue as a society.

The prevailing wisdom based on politics just can't be right.

We've got to tackle this somehow.

I makes me wonder if there isn't some sort of evil agenda over this issue, that isn't somehow cursing society as a whole at some level, and where, when we straighten it out, will cause the Spirit of Life to blow more forcefully and freely through the human being, who once he/she at some level chose to incarnate (it's possible that this is true and many after-life memories of children support it), we cannot be cut short prematurely based on a whim, as if being born out of a bloody war by mere chance or fluke.

These deaths ought to be mourned and for the love of God and people something has to be done about this sad state of affairs, and by that I don't mean attacking women or the integrity of their body but to simply move the line to the appropriate place and then surrounding it with free services covered by the government.

Alien worlds and advanced civilizations, if they exist, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't subscribe to such a barbaric legal framework surrounding the miracle of life itself.

The status quo as it sits is unacceptable.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Grambler


Also, what is partial birth abortion? Is that just another name for late-term abortion? Is it still legal?!

As far as partial birth, I am not sure of the exact definition but I think people use it to mean late term abortions. The laws vary state to state, I think in PA where Gosnell was charged 24 weeks was the latest you could abort.

From wikipedia

An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

I stand corrected. But it is still true that late term abortions are not illegal, they're regulated, from state to state, according to Roe V Wade, which I'm happy to support. Gosnell clearly broke the law and I'm not defending him.

Hey no problem, I am not trying to have some gotcha moment or something. If I made of list all of the times I was mistaken about something I would be here all month.

You are right that Roe let it up to the states to regulate, and I respect people that favor that decision even if I don't like it.

And I know you are not defending Gosnell, I don't think anyone on this thread is.

No one is saying that! We are saying that women, their doctors and their families shouldn't have to run those reasons by you or the government.

Ok maybe its my fault, but we are clearly interpreting what annee said and others agreed with in different ways.

By the way I appreciate the conversation, so I am not trying to attack you are anything.

Let me ask you the question in a different way to help clarify, and perhaps if annee is reading she can clarify to.

If a woman and her family all decide at 8 or nine months that they now don't think they can financially afford a baby and want to terminate, and the doctor agrees to perform this abortion (now look I know you are saying a doctor wouldn't do this, but I think Gosnell shows that there may be some that would), do you think that it should be allowed to happen?

My position is that society does have a right when all consensus in science would say that that baby is a life to say that unless there are extreme circumstances, you can't end that life.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


It's still the woman's fault 100% - - - let me know when it becomes 50%.

I think we have some agreement on the crux of this point, but I do think that society blames deadbeat dads, and do not 100% blame the woman. I know I think deadebeat dads are one of the biggest problems we have in this country, and there are a lot of women that struggle because some garbage man left them high and dry.

Women that have raised there children in a successful manner in a single parent household are stronger than I ever will be. I was blessed to have two caring parents, but I saw some of my friends that were raised just by their mom, and these mothers are some of the biggest inspirations in my life.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

It's a heavy burden of law to place upon women, but just stop and think it all the way through from the POV of individual human rights including the rights of the unborn.

Just so you know - - I have had an elective abortion. I chose it.

And I would have been really pissed off if there was a law denying me that choice.

Later, got things to do.

a reply to: Grambler

If a woman and her family all decide at 8 or nine months that they now don't think they can financially afford a baby and want to terminate, and the doctor agrees to perform this abortion (now look I know you are saying a doctor wouldn't do this, but I think Gosnell shows that there may be some that would), do you think that it should be allowed to happen?

Under certain circumstances, for example a diagnosis of encephalitis. It would be more human, in my opinion to perform an abortion than to give birth, only to have the infant die a painful death.

An abortion at that stage still requires the woman to give birth, or for the doctor to perform a C-section. It's more dangerous to perform an abortion on a late term healthy fetus than to deliver it and give it up for adoption. So, I think your hypothetical situation isn't a reasonable one, and even though their may be doctors who don't honor their "do no harm oath", they'd be setting themselves up for a malpractice lawsuit, loss of their license if not criminal prosecution to perform such an abortion.

Besides, selling babies on the black market would be way more profitable for some sleazy doctor than aborting healthy late term fetuses.