Abortions - Why so bad?

originally posted by: Annee
...
UNWANTED CHILDREN SUFFER LONG-TERM DIFFICULTIES
...

Another problem that abortion was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children. The theory was that unwanted children were abused, and preventing their birth would end the abuse. Facts disprove the theory. Child battering has greatly increased, as the following press report discloses: “Looser abortion laws do not result in fewer battered children​—a five-year study by Dr. Edward Lenoski, professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California found that following the passage of ‘abortion on demand’, cruel infanticide and child battering increased three-fold​—a logical result of the concept that ‘life is cheap.’” Instead of remedying the battering of children, abortion has added to this the battering of millions of babies in the womb.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

Nah. A zygote doesn't actually become a viable, fully realized human being until it's born alive.
...
... They just really do just want autonomy over their body, the liberty and freedom to make choices that affect their body, their life and health. ...

The claim is often made that the pregnant woman should have control of her own body, but the fetus is not her body. It is not an appendage or part such as the appendix or gallbladder the removal of which has been likened to the removal of the fetus from the mother’s body. Dr. A. W. Liley, world-renowned research professor of fetal physiology, said: “Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the foetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception.” He continues with a description of the activities of the fetus, as follows:

“We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort determines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less if it is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And finally he determines his birthday, for unquestionably the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus. . . . This is also the foetus whose existence and identity must be so callously ignored or energetically denied by advocates of abortion.”

After reviewing such amazing abilities of the fetus in the womb, Dr. Liley says: “You would think this knowledge would bring a new respect for the unborn. Instead some now are hellbent on his destruction​—just when he had achieved some physical and emotional identity.” Why has the abortion movement made such headway in spite of the obvious humanness of the baby? Dr. Liley’s answer: “The unborn is small, naked, nameless and voiceless. It is his defenselessness that makes him such a convenient victim. He has not yet reached the age of social significance and he cannot strike back for himself.”

Bernard Nathanson, M.D., once head of New York’s now defunct first and busiest abortion clinic, did a dramatic turnabout as he said: “I became convinced that as director of the clinic I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” He added: “To vehemently deny that life begins when conception begins is absurd!”

Dr. Howard Diamond, of Beth Israel Medical Center, disagrees: “If I feel anything, I feel gratified. Abortion is much more important than the life of a child that doesn’t exist. . . . A fetus is nothing!”

Doctors’ reactions to performing abortions vary widely. At one extreme there is guilt and despair. The doctors admitted to heavy drinking and nightmares from performing great numbers of assembly-line abortions. At the other extreme there are doctors who claim to derive satisfaction from the operations because they feel they are saving women’s lives, both emotionally and physically.

Some doctors have mixed feelings. Dr. William Rashbaum, of Beth Israel Medical Center, once had nightmares about a tiny fetus resisting abortion by hanging on to the walls of the uterus. He learned to live with that, no longer has that fantasy, but said: “I’m a person. I’m entitled to my feelings. And my feelings are who gave me or anybody the right to terminate a pregnancy? I’m entitled to that feeling, but I also have no right to communicate it to the patient who desperately needs that abortion. I don’t get paid for my feelings, I get paid for my skills. . . . I began to do abortions in larger numbers at the time of my divorce when I needed money. But I also believe in the woman’s right to control her biological destiny.”

John Szenes, M.D., believes in the woman’s right to abortion and that is his primary consideration. However, he does admit the saline abortion takes some getting used to: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.” And he then adds: “So I can imagine, if I had started doing 24-weekers right off the bat, I would have had much greater conflict in my own mind whether this is tantamount to murder.”

At the Beth Israel Hospital, in Denver, Colorado, a doctor did an abortion by injecting birth hormones to induce premature birth. Hours later the baby was delivered live, cried, and some time later died. The doctor ordered no life-sustaining measures. Nurses were upset, one resigned. Concerning a similar situation, one Denver obstetrician said: “Trying to save the fetus when you’re performing an abortion is like sending an ambulance to a firing squad. The whole intent of an abortion​—on the part of both the woman and the doctor—​is to see that the fetus doesn’t survive.”

Many nurses have had traumatic experiences, especially with saline abortions. One investigator reported on the testimony of a head nurse in a gynecological ward where large numbers of such abortions were performed. “She recounted many horrifying situations,” he said, “which included babies born alive, for whom they had no facilities whatsoever in the hospital. She personally witnessed one physician who happened to be present at the birth of a live born baby, who subsequently drowned the baby in a bucket of formalin.” Another report tells of babies aborted at eight months, and says aborted babies able to live at six months “are killed by doctors through injections or suffocating them in vinyl bags.” The babies are viable, but they are killed.

Coming back to the remark about money by Dr. William Rashbaum...

Abortion—At What Price? (Awake!—1987)

...

The Business of Abortion

...

Nevertheless, abortions are still being performed in increasing numbers. And one reason is perhaps not too difficult to find. It is a profitable business.

In Paris, France, for example, parents paid the equivalent of £1,000 ($1,400) for their teenage daughter to have a private abortion, according to a report in the medical magazine Pulse. Some London clinics, says the same report, charge up to £2,000 ($2,800) for every abortion they perform.

In 1982, two of Britain’s largest abortion agencies had a combined income of £4.5 million ($6.3 million). Reporting this figure, Human Concern comments: “Abortion is a lucrative business.” In Japan the government refuses to legalize the birth-control pill. “The ban,” reported The Sunday Times of London, “is due to lobbying by doctors, who make a fortune from abortion.” Wherever you look in the world of abortion, money surfaces.

...

Even so, many doctors are becoming increasingly unhappy about the whole affair. At the opening of the abortion era in Britain, the Daily Mail reported Professor Ian Morris as saying: “If I were just beginning my career knowing what I know now about abortions, I would never choose gynaecology.” He added: “I detest the operation. It is a complete reversal of all my medical training. The whole aim is to save life, not perform this particular form of homicide.” Strong words, indeed, and not every doctor will agree with them. But they do convey some idea of the revulsion to the practice some doctors instinctively feel.

...

Especially for politicians and lobbyists who get campaign contributions from those who have money invested in the abortion industry (or medical industry in general, including so-called 'Big Pharma', who also get a piece of the same 'abortion' pie). And they are the ones that feed you with all the pro-abortion arguments also seen in this thread. Similarly, financial interests are involved in the type of scientific publications as the one Annee just linked. Also, scientific research is often manipulated to misleadingly present the desired results (again especially when there is a financial interest to paint a particular picture). Fraud in Science is quite rampant, especially in the medical industry.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Annee
...
UNWANTED CHILDREN SUFFER LONG-TERM DIFFICULTIES
...

Another problem that abortion was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children. The theory was that unwanted children were abused, and preventing their birth would end the abuse. Facts disprove the theory. Child battering has greatly increased, as the following press report discloses: “Looser abortion laws do not result in fewer battered children​—a five-year study by Dr. Edward Lenoski, professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California found that following the passage of ‘abortion on demand’, cruel infanticide and child battering increased three-fold​—a logical result of the concept that ‘life is cheap.’” Instead of remedying the battering of children, abortion has added to this the battering of millions of babies in the womb.

LINK please

I can only find this on a Watchtower site and a Catholic site. Both anti-abortion sites.

BTW -- Here's real info on Dr. Lenoski's study. Has nothing to do with abortion. The common thread with these parents is they themselves were abused as children.

The landmark study on this was done at the University of Southern California. Professor Edward Lenoski studied 674 consecutive battered children who were brought to the in- and out-patient departments of that medical center. He was the first to go to the parents and study to what extent they wanted and planned the pregnancy. To his surprise, he found that 91% were planned and wanted, compared to 63% for the control groups nationally. Further, the mothers had begun wearing, on average, pregnancy clothes at 114 days compared to 171 days in the control, and the fathers named the boys after themselves 24% of the time compared to 4% for the control groups. The parents commonly grew up in a hostile environment and were themselves abused. When the children fail to satisfy their [unrealistic, neurotic expectations of perfection] emotional needs, the parents react with the same violence they experienced as children.

a reply to: whereislogic

Albert William Liley was one of the founders of the New Zealand anti-abortion group, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (now Voice for Life), in 1971 and served as that organization's first president.

Liley committed suicide in 1983 -- guess he really didn't value life that much.

a reply to: whereislogic

The claim is often made that the pregnant woman should have control of her own body, but the fetus is not her body.

Her uterus is her own body. Her heart, her lungs, her kidneys, her liver, her breasts are HER BODY! Without her body there would be no ovum. no zygote, no pregnancy.

a reply to: Annee
It's not available online (AFAIK), but you're not really interested anyway. You had another motive for asking for a link. Your argument that Dr. Lenoski's study has nothing to do with abortion will not negate the facts or statistics regarding looser abortion laws not resulting in fewer battered children, contrary to the argument of pro-abortionists. The study was about child abuse. Which was what the argument of pro-abortionists was about.

I understand that for you (and those in your camp) the fact that something comes from an anti-abortion source is reason enough for you to dismiss it (or categorize it as not worthy for serious consideration), but pointing it out does not have the same effect on me. So you're preaching to the choir, your choir (i.e. the pro-abortion choir). When you're pointing that out.

Did you notice something about the variety of opinion shared by the professionals in the field quoted in my subsequent comment (after Dr. Liley, who was focusing on the facts)?

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. ...

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

And they really would like everyone to dismiss or refuse to consider anything that does not conform to the view they are promoting, in any sort of serious fashion. There are a number of tricks involved in discrediting opposing viewpoints or those proposing them. Ridicule and scoff, as you demonstrated regarding Dr. Liley, plays a big role. Also, some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. That's because even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

So if they can get you to dislike someone like Dr. Liley because he is "anti-abortion", they can more easily get you to dismiss anything he might have to say regarding these subjects. Even when he's merely focusing on the facts that some people don't want to deal with, or acknowledge (including their relevance to this discussion).

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nope.
You are confusing the term "person" with "human being".
Also, the woman has autonomy of her mind and body.
In 99% of cases she FREELY used that autonomy to try and exercise her reproduction rights.

a reply to: Annee

WRONG! Give me ONE unselfish reason to have a child.

To allow another human being the right to Life.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

Yes, Christians oppose abortion, as does anyone with a shred of humanity. Again, the main driving force is not religious doctrine, it's simple logic and compassion to propagate your own species and protect the young and vulnerable.

My moral compass, humanity, and compassion is LIVING CHILDREN. That's real and right now.

Let me know when all the LIVING CHILDREN are cared for, loved, housed, fed educated, etc.

Yes -- they are the future.

This world does not need one more unwanted child. There is no humanity in forcing that.

Should we "abort" the homeless,then?

Ridiculous question,isn't it?

a reply to: Quadrivium

In 99% of cases she FREELY used that autonomy to try and exercise her reproduction rights.

Sexual activity isn't an exercise of one's reproductive rights.
99% of the time, sexual activity does not result in pregnancy.
Having children shouldn't be a punishment for expressing one's sexuality.

a reply to: whereislogic

This is so sad. How anyone can support this is beyond me.

originally posted by: crazyeddie68

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

Yes, Christians oppose abortion, as does anyone with a shred of humanity. Again, the main driving force is not religious doctrine, it's simple logic and compassion to propagate your own species and protect the young and vulnerable.

My moral compass, humanity, and compassion is LIVING CHILDREN. That's real and right now.

Let me know when all the LIVING CHILDREN are cared for, loved, housed, fed educated, etc.

Yes -- they are the future.

This world does not need one more unwanted child. There is no humanity in forcing that.

Should we "abort" the homeless,then?

Ridiculous question,isn't it?

I'm not going to do ridiculous or extremism.

a reply to: Annee

That's all you and your sick friends ever do.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: whereislogic

This is so sad. How anyone can support this is beyond me.

And I have no issue with that.

Just stay out of my life and my choices.

But Pro-Lifers don't stay out of other people's lives -- do they?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

That's all you and your sick friends ever do.

My "sick" Right of autonomy for women friends?

We mind our own business.

Pro-Lifers don't.

a reply to: Annee

No, i'll fight to stop this sick practice, despite your protestations.

If you want to kill unborn children then you can consider me an enemy!

Stop advocating for the killing of children and we won't have an issue.

Also as a 76 year old woman surely your days of carrying children are long over, so what say do you have in the matter? Aren't you commenting on the lives of others since you're incapable of pregnancy?

You're too dumb to see the hypocrisy of the vast majority of the crap you spout.

a reply to: Annee

AH, so once again people shouldn't think for themselves and it's the group that matters.

You don't speak for all women, far from it.

Good for Sir Albert William Liley -- who found his passion. His medical works will be forever of great value.

However, if you think he was protecting "God's children and the sanctity of life" -- think again.

He was a lifelong atheist who committed suicide.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

AH, so once again people shouldn't think for themselves and it's the group that matters.

You don't speak for all women, far from it.

When did I ever say people couldn't think for themselves?

I do speak for ALL women. The right of autonomy and choice.