Aborted and miscarried babies are burnt with clinical detritus to heat hospitals, but why do we care?
The revelation that British hospitals have been burning thousands of aborted and miscarried babies as clinical waste and in some cases to heat the hospitals has caused official consternation, but it is hardly surprising.
If medical professionals are permitted – no, expected – to dismember (amongst other things) the bodies of living babies when carrying out abortions, is it any wonder that they lack respect for those same babies’ dead bodies or for the bodies of miscarried babies at the same stage of development?
When the terms “clump of cells”, “product of conception” and “blob of tissue” are routinely used to describe and dehumanise the unborn child, what kind of dignified send-off can we really expect?
If as a society we accept the behaviour and attitude of medical professionals when it comes to abortion then why, as stated by the UK Minister of Health Dr Dan Poulter, is their offhand disposal of foetal remains “totally unacceptable”?
The gross lack of respect is nothing new. In the United States there are frequently stories about aborted babies being found in dumpsters outside abortion clinics, and last year the trial of the Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell revealed his clinic to be a real life “house of horrors” where foetal remains were found stored in bags and cat food containers, their severed feet preserved in glass jars, and the body of a 19 week foetus stored in a freezer.
But if it is ethically and legally acceptable for babies to be killed in the womb, why should anyone, let alone a government minister, be shocked when foetal remains are “cremated” with hospital waste? Yet, this contradictory attitude is prevalent in our society.
In 2011, 32-week-old twins were both aborted after staff at an Australian hospital initially killed the healthy twin by accident and, after realising their mistake, also aborted the sick twin who had a congenital heart defect. The hospital apologised for the “terrible tragedy”.
In 2012 a New Zealand judge sent a pregnant alcoholic on her eighth drink-driving conviction to prison to protect her unborn child.
Last year in the UK, Tony McLernon was jailed for 27 years for beating to death his ex-fiancée who was nine months pregnant with their child. He was convicted of murder and child destruction by a jury.
All over the world the media regularly report car crashes or other accidents in which unborn babies are “killed” or which “claimed the life of an unborn child”.
Life-saving treatments are used to save the lives of prematurely born babies, sometimes the same age and in the same hospital as those who are aborted.
So it seems we do care, but why?
We care because when the lives of unborn children are lost or their bodies disrespected outside the clinical procedure of abortion, they are not dehumanised to the level of a “clump of cells”, “product of conception” or “blob of tissue”. We see the unborn child for what it really is – a small and developing but living human being. Someone’s baby. Our reaction of shock and disgust when those little, most vulnerable human beings are harmed or disrespected, is therefore completely natural and justified.
However, when it comes to abortion, the humanity of the unborn child is still the elephant in the room. We need to start being intellectually honest with ourselves and carefully consider what it is that happens to the 40-50 million babies who are aborted worldwide each year. Maybe we should care about them too.
Cross-posted from Rachael at MercatorNet.com
The very latest edition of the NZ Listener features one of the most blatant pieces of pro abortion-choice propaganda that I’ve seen in a while.
The ‘article’ (note the deliberate use of inverted commas), titled ‘Flo never said no‘, is all about notorious New Zealand backstreet abortionist Flo Radcliffe (1904 – 1975).
Radcliffe, known as ‘the abortion queen of New Zealand‘, began performing illegal abortions in Wellington in the 1930′s. In the years and decades that followed she was arrested and charged several times for breaking the NZ law that outlawed the killing of unborn human beings.
This terribly biased Listener article is little more than an attempt to rewrite history and portray Florence Radcliffe as Florence Nightingale, even going as far as to boldly declare that “Florence Radcliffe can now be seen as a brave pioneer.”
Three rather important, and VERY inconvenient facts for Flo Radcliffe apologists are mentioned and then glossed over in this article:
Firstly, far from being a charity worker, Flo Radcliffe charged her desperate clients the equivalent of $2500 in today’s money per abortion.
Just stop and think about that for a second. If she performed only one abortion per week, Flo Radcliffe would be making $130,000 per year in today’s money plying her backstreet abortion trade.
The article refers to the fact that Radcliffe became known by the slogan: “Flo never said no” in regard to abortion – and was it any wonder when she was milking every client for $2500 per abortion?!
Perhaps a more accurate slogan might have been: ‘Flo never says no, to the cash flow’?
Secondly, Flo Radcliffe was a pimp who set up and ran a brothel from her home in the early 1930′s – a period where prostitution was even more of an exploitation, and even more brutal on women than what it is today.
The article clearly lays out the fact that Flo Radcliffe only began pimping women from her home, and performing abortions for an exorbitant fee after she managed to wrack up huge debts from a failed business venture.
So, in other words, it is highly unlikely that her abortion practice was a humanitarian venture – instead it was about making money, even if her lawyer tried to mount the ridiculous defense in court that it wasn’t. This invites the rather obvious question: if this is true, then why was she charging the excessive fee of $2500 per abortion?!
Thirdly, Flo Radcliffe hospitalized at least one of her female clients – an incident which this Listener article unbelievably refers to in the following way: “[Radcliffe] seemed to be losing her touch: one of the women involved had ended up in hospital.”
Yep, that’s right folks, in the field of pro abortion-choice propaganda, doing such serious damage as to cause the hospitalization of one of your female clients is apparently now considered to be little more than ‘losing your touch.’
If this is what passes for a pioneering women’s advocate then I’d really hate to see what these people consider to be the exploitation of women.
It’s hard to see how Redmer Yska (the author of this article), the editor of the NZ Listener, or NZ abortion-choice activist Margaret Sparrow can have any credibility left after making such ludicrous claims, and producing such a biased advocacy piece as this one.
Cross-posted from The Leading Edge Blog.
Today we bring you an interview with a doctor with a passion to serve people with Down Syndrome – even before they are born. (Cross-posted from MercatorNet)
On World Down Syndrome Day (March 21) whom better to tune into than Brian Skotko, an American geneticist and paediatrician who has dedicated his professional career to service of people with Down and their families? Those people include his own younger sister, Kristin, of whom he said in a recent interview with Science magazine:
I got to see firsthand what it’s like to grow up with an extra chromosome. I learned along the way that some of the struggles are not defined by your chromosomes, but by the community that you live in.
MercatorNet first heard about Dr Skotko in 2005 when his ground-breaking research — as a Harvard Medical School post-graduate student — amongst mothers who had given birth to a baby with Down were published. His findings were a wake-up call to doctors.
These days he is co-director of the Down Syndrome Program at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children in Boston, one of the leading children’s hospitals in the United States. The program’s vision statement reads: Our passion is to provide healthcare, research, and education that contribute to a world in which all people with Down syndrome are accepted, celebrated and have the opportunity to fully realize their potential.
In a brief Q&A with MercatorNet, Dr Skotko gives an idea of how the medical community is doing in terms of that vision. But first, watch the following short television interview and meet the man who is, surely, one of the most effective advocates for people of all ages and stages with Down syndrome.
MercatorNet: When your research with mothers who gave birth to children with Down was published almost a decade ago the majority had experienced negative attitudes on the part of doctors. From what parents tell you, have professional attitudes improved since then?
Dr Skotko: Regrettably, I think little progress has been made. I still hear from new and expectant mothers that the information they often receive about Down syndrome is incorrect, incomplete, and sometimes offensive.
The theme for Down Syndrome Day this year is “Health and wellbeing – access and equality for all”, which implies that people with Down meet with discrimination in the health system. Is that your impression?
Not all people with Down syndrome have access to specialty clinics. In the United States, we have 58 Down syndrome specialty clinics in 32 different states, hardly enough to meet the needs of the 250,000 Americans who have Down syndrome. Until every person with Down syndrome can live to their full potential, our work is not yet complete.
Of course, the greatest discrimination occurs when babies with Down are denied the chance to be born – in some countries the rate of abortion following prenatal diagnosis has reportedly been as high as 90 percent. Is this still the trend, or has it changed?
According to the research done in the United States–which was conducted more than one decade ago in only three states (Hawaii, California, and Maine–approximately 74% of expectant women who receive a definitive diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancy. More recent data have not yet been published. With the advent of new cell-free DNA prenatal testing for Down syndrome, an open question remains: will babies with Down syndrome slowly start to disappear? Only time will tell.
Through the program at Massachusetts General Hospital what can you offer people with Down, and their families?
In our Massachusetts General Hospital Down Syndrome Program, we offer a comprehensive annual evaluation for people with Down syndrome of all ages. In short, our clinical experts offer a “tune-up,” making sure that all of our patients with Down syndrome can live their lives to the maximum potential. Our clinical evaluations are age-specific, and families leave clinic knowing that the most cutting-edge resources will be offered. More details at www.massgeneral.org/downsyndrome
Are there drugs which can help? Is it too soon to talk about a cure?
At Massachusetts General Hospital Down Syndrome Program, we are recruiting patients for two clinical drug trials. In each, an experimental drug is offered to willing participants to see if their cognition, language, and working memory might be improved. More details on our research web page at www.massgeneral.org/downsyndromeresearch.
Here is part 2 of the television interview:
Ok I confess that this article is and old one, but I thought it too touching not to share you folk today!
I’ve heard a lot of pro-choice arguments that go along the lines of “Well if the child wont grow up loved and wanted then it’s better that it be aborted anyway.” You’ve heard it before too I’m sure. It’s usually a more offhanded remark in my experience (which aren’t always the best thought out ..), but it shows to me a narrowness of vision and a unrealistic pessimistic attitude.
Certainly I agree that all children should be loved and cherished. But stating that a child should be killed because it might have a bad childhood is trying to argue that one should forsake the outside world entirely in order to avoid suffering any heartache. It’s also a bit like saying that if you can’t have a loving childhood, life isn’t worth living. Which, given that the average human will probably spend only a quarter or less of their life as a child …seems more than a bit silly! I’ve meet people who have had awful upbringings and yet (shockingly) have no desire to die. Or any regrets about being alive. The other interesting point to make here regards who exactly decides what is ‘worth’ it. Surely only the child could even hope to determine that? But I digress!
I’ve also known many new parents who were reluctant and even afraid at first, who later came to love and adore their children (as all parents should of course!). In fact that would be the rule so far I must say. Children tend to grab hold of our hearts without us realising it. (Just try one day to feed a baby with a spoon and not make the eating gesture with your own mouth at the same time. You’ll see what I mean.) On the other hand, I’ve never even heard of a parent that went the other way and winded up loathing their child. Lastly, things change. Both parents and circumstances. And that, dear readers, is what our article today is about.
I gasped the first time I saw her photo. Limbs splayed out across a metal crib, the little girl’s ribs nearly poked out of her chest. Her striped socks — the only piece of clothing she wore on her emaciated body — nearly fell off her miniature feet. And her thighs and arms! They looked no larger than my fingers. This girl looked like she had just crawled out of Auschwitz or Dachau, not a government-run children’s home.
Then I saw her statistics and blinked twice. Sophia, a nearly-four-year-girl from Eastern Europe, weighed ten pounds. Ten pounds at four years old. That’s how much my brother weighed at birth, not when he entered preschool!
As a volunteer with Reece’s Rainbow, an adoption advocacy agency that works with special-needs children all around the world, I know the statistics, have heard the stories and have even met the evidence: children who have any special need — whether it be Down Syndrome, spina bifida, cerebral palsy, HIV/AIDS, albinism or even a cleft palate — often get a raw deal, especially in other countries. That translates into less food, education, resources and love for children from societies who simply don’t know better. Parents who birth Down Syndrome kids like Sophia sometimes think the babies cursed and better forgotten in an institution. Or, at the very least, they are a burden and should be treated as such.
Thanks to Sophia’s extra chromosome, that’s exactly the fate her Eastern European country handed her. She had been abandoned to a life of slow starvation of both body and soul. If you asked the average joe on the street, he or she would probably say death would be a kinder fate than the life Sophia was living.
And yet, Sophia was wanted. My friend Lauren and her family brought her home to the West Coast last year. With some careful nutrition and boatloads of love, she went from this…
When I hear a pro-choice friend say, “I think abortion should be legal because I want every child to be a wanted child,” I tell them Sophia’s story. And Dasha’s, Emily’s, Gary’s, Marnie’s and the many, many other children who have found forever families with my friends in the last few years. All have Down Syndrome or some other condition that labeled them “unfit” from birth. And yet every last one is not only wanted, but cherished and sought after like a priceless treasure. (And thanks to the cost of adopting internationally, these kids literally are worth their weight in gold!).
When I meet up with my Reece’s Rainbow buddies, it’s always the same story: we all want to bring a certain child home, but the money holds us back. If it weren’t for finances, I’m fairly certain there would be no kids listed because they would all be taken the moment they become available. (And yes, I realize domestic foster care and adoption are options; my own family and many of my friends have taken that route).
When a society deems its smallest, most vulnerable members unworthy of basic essentials like calories and compassion, it passes on that attitude to its struggling parents. Perhaps these men and women don’t have the resources or education to realize that raising a special-needs child isn’t a death sentence (or sometimes, they do. One of my friends adopted a beautiful girl with Down Syndrome last year whose biological mother is a lawyer). But Lauren and all other adoptive parents are proving the pro-choice rallying cry of “Every child a wanted child!” to be completely false.
Every child IS a wanted child. And Sophia is proof of what a discarded human can do despite his or her biological beginnings.
Because here’s the truth: Planned Parenthood’s wish for every child to be a wanted child has already come true.
I took the bait.
I couldn’t help but open an email with the subject line: “You’re afraid of this pro-choice argument”
Afraid? I’m afraid of a lot of things. Actually, five things: spiders, asteroids, ghosts, head lice, and malaria. But arguments? Especially pro-abortion arguments? Definitely not on the list.
I might be frustrated by them; annoyed, angered, even disturbed, but afraid? I don’t think so.
Here’s Rachel, trying to strike fear into my heart:
Dear Matt, ever since I first read your blog I knew you were a cowardly fake. It wasn’t until I started reading some of your anti-choice articles that my suspicions were truly confirmed. You spend a lot of time picking the low hanging fruit. You attack the weakest abortion rights arguments while ignoring the glaring weaknesses in your own position.
If you had the guts or the brains you’d try to respond to the most important abortion rights argument… bodily autonomy or bodily integrity. This means that we have the final jurisdiction over our own bodies. Nobody can claim a right to our body that goes above our own right. Nobody can use our bodies without consent. We cannot be forced to donate organs or blood to someone else. A fetus must survive on a woman’s body so the woman has a right to withdrawal her consent and her body at any time.
This is the pro-choice argument that no anti-choice fanatic… especially one as stubborn and simpleminded as you… could ever possibly dispute. If you still don’t understand, try to imagine this hypothetical…
Imagine that you wake up one morning in a hospital bed. In the bed next to you is a famous singer. He is unconscious and all of these tubes are connected from him to you. A doctor comes in and explains that the singer became sick and you are the only person with the right blood type to match his. They need you to remain hooked up to him until he recovers… they tell you it should only take nine months. Until then, he needs to use all of your organs… your kidneys, liver, lungs, everything… just to survive. If you unplug yourself, he will die. So do you think you are obligated to stay plugged in? Does he have a right to live off of you like this? Should you be FORCED to stay connected to him?
That’s what situation the pregnant woman is in. Instead of harping on all of these irrelevant issues, I wish you’d be brave enough to address it from this angle. It is immoral to require a woman to sustain a fetus and it is moral for a woman to make a decision with her body based on what is right for her. How can you argue against this?
But I guess your blog is more about preaching to the choir than actually being intelligent and bold in your writing. What a shame.
Here’s my answer:
You’re right. You win. I have no response. I can’t think of any reason why you’re wrong about any of the points you raised.
Well, I can’t think of any reason — except for, like, ten reasons. So I’ll start with five reasons why that hypothetical is flawed, and move on to five additional reasons why your overall argument is flawed.
Here we go:
1. Your analogy is flawed because it presupposes that the relationship between mother and child is no more significant, and carries with it no more responsibility, than the relationship between a person and some random stranger in a hospital bed.
This is absurd. If we’re trying to make this hypothetical as close to pregnancy as possible, shouldn’t the sick singer (or violinist, according to the original iteration of this hypothetical) at least be your child? Your argument doesn’t work because the fact that your child is your child, and not some strange adult from across town, is precisely the point. Hidden cleverly in this hypothetical is the insinuation that one cannot agree that an unborn child has a right to his mother’s body, without agreeing that anyone in the entire world, in any context, for any reason, at any point, for any period of time, has a right to a woman’s body.
Nice try, Rachel.
Just because a mother is expected to be a mother doesn’t mean she’s also expected to be a slave, a prostitute, and a forced organ donor to talented musical artists. Indeed, the extent of our responsibility to a person hinges in many ways on our relationship to them. You would, I assume, agree that you have a responsibility to your born children, wouldn’t you? And your responsibility to them extends far beyond your responsibility to your neighbor, or your plumber, or your trash collector, doesn’t it? The relationship matters. Your hypothetical fails because it pretends that relationships are irrelevant.
2. Your analogy is flawed because it leaves out an important detail: how did the singer become ill in the first place?
Aside from cases of rape, a child is only conceived because two people intentionally committed a particular act which has, literally billions of times, resulted in the conception of a human life.
This singer came down with a terrible sickness. You might feel pity for him, but you didn’t cause him to be sick. You didn’t put him in this state. You had absolutely nothing to do with it. The same cannot be said when a child is conceived.
3. Your analogy is flawed because, when framed properly, it doesn’t strengthen your moral position — it defeats it.
The hypothetical should be this: your own child becomes very sick because of something you did. He needs a blood transfusion and you are the only match. Would you refuse to give him your blood because it infringes on your bodily autonomy? Could this be morally justified? You put your kid in the hospital and now you will choose to watch him die because he ‘doesn’t have a right to your blood.’ THIS scenario would be the closest to abortion. And, if you are consistent in your affinity for ‘bodily autonomy,’ you could not criticize parents who’d rather let their child die than be inconvenienced by a blood transfusion.
4. But, no matter how you frame the hypothetical, it is still flawed because it ignores one crucial thing: natural order.
An unborn child is exactly where he is supposed to be. He couldn’t possibly be anywhere else. This is the fundamental difference between two people hooked up to machines on a hospital bed, and a ‘fetus’ connected to his mother insider her womb. The former represents unnatural and extraordinary measures, while the latter represents something natural and ordinary. The unborn child is where Nature (or God, as I call Him) intends it to be.
The unborn child is not, in any scientific or medical sense, an intruder or a parasite. These words have meanings, and unborn babies do not fit the bill. They are where they are supposed to be. They are where they belong. A fish belongs in water, just as an unborn child belongs in his mother’s womb.
5. Beyond all of these points, the analogy is flawed because abortion is not the same as ‘unplugging’ a person from medical equipment.
It might be quite sanitary and pleasant to refer to abortion as a woman ‘withdrawing support’ from her child, but the procedure goes beyond this. During a ‘termination,’ the baby is actively killed. It is crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart. It is killed. It is actively, actually, purposefully, intentionally killed.
In fact, even in the original hypothetical — where you’re hooked up to a singer in a hospital bed — while it would be acceptable to unplug yourself, it would NOT be morally or legally permissible to shoot the poor guy in the head. A person’s physical reliance on you does not give you the moral (or legal, usually) right to murder them. ‘Withdrawing support’ is precisely what an abortion isn’t. If it was, then the baby would be delivered and left to die in the corner of the room. Of course, this is how some abortionists conduct business, but it’s illegal. If they’re caught, they go to jail.
6. But the bodily autonomy argument is flawed in ways that go beyond that utterly fallacious and misleading hypothetical. It’s flawed because nobody is crazy enough to consistently apply it to pregnant women.
According to bodily autonomy, a mother could not be judged harshly for smoking, drinking, doing coke, and going skydiving (hopefully not all in the same day) while 6 months pregnant. If you really believe that a woman’s body is autonomous — that she has absolute jurisdiction over it — then you must defend a mother who does things that could seriously harm her unborn child, even if she hasn’t chosen to abort it. This is not a slippery slope argument; this is a reasonable and inevitable application of your principle.
7. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it requires you to support abortion at every stage of development.
I’m throwing this in here because most pro-aborts will not (vocally) defend abortion at 8 or 9 months. But — if bodily autonomy is your claim — you must. Is a woman’s body less autonomous when she’s been pregnant for 35 weeks? There is no way around it: bodily autonomy means that it is moral to kill a fully formed baby, at seven months, or eight months, or nine months.
8. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because you can’t limit it to pregnant women.
You say that our bodies cannot be ‘used’ without our ‘consent.’ Why should this apply only to pregnancy and organ donations? Children, at any age, create profound demands on their parents’ bodies. Whether it’s waking up in the middle of the night for the crying baby, working long hours to pay for their food and clothing, carrying them around when they cannot walk, staying home when you’d like to go out, going out (to bring them to the doctor, or school, or soccer practice) when you’d like to stay in, etc, etc, etc, and so forth. An argument for absolute bodily autonomy means that it can’t be illegal, or considered immoral, for a parent to decline to do any of these things, so long as their decision was made in the name of bodily autonomy.
9. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it necessarily justifies things like public masturbation.
If I can ‘do what I want with my body,’ then it becomes very difficult to launch a salient moral or legal attack against a man who chooses to sit in a playground in front of children and pleasure his own body.
10. Finally, the bodily autonomy argument is flawed because our bodies are not autonomous.
I’m often accused of oversimplifying, but I’ve never oversimplified to the extent of you bodily autonomy proponents. Once we’ve considered every complexity and nuance, we can rightly say that our bodies are autonomous in some ways, and in some circumstances, but not in others. We cannot say that they are absolutely autonomous, and I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks that.
Any claim or responsibility placed on me, automatically includes a claim and responsibility on my body. Everything I do involves my body. I am my body. CS Lewis would say that I am my soul and I have a body. I agree with him, but for our purposes in this discussion, leaving souls and spirits aside, we are our bodies. Whether we are expected to pay taxes or drive the speed limit or provide a safe and sanitary home for our children, we are using our bodies to meet these expectations. We experience and participate in life with our bodies. Absolute bodily autonomy is inexorably linked with personal autonomy. If my body is autonomous, my person must be autonomous, and if my person is autonomous, then my very existence is autonomous, and if my very existence is autonomous, then it is simply unacceptable and (by your logic) immoral for anyone to expect me to do anything for anyone at any point for any reason.
If you concede that we ought to be expected or even required to do certain things, then you are placing limits on our bodily autonomy. If you place limits on our bodily autonomy, then you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy. If you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy, then you must consider whether abortion falls within or outside of those limits. And here’s the rub: if you contend that abortion falls within the limits on bodily autonomy, you must justify that belief beyond simply reasserting our right to bodily autonomy.
Personally, I think that abortion goes well beyond the limits on bodily autonomy, for all of the reasons I’ve previously stipulated.
There’s your answer, Rachel.
But, except for the ten reasons why you’re wrong, you’re right on the money.
And, except for the ten answers I’ve provided, I have no answers for you.
I guess you win.
Thanks for writing.
Cross-posted from the Matt Walsh blog.
ProLife NZ included abortion procedure information on our website alongside our Right to Know campaign that we ran on university campuses nationwide. This information is available here.
Please note that in New Zealand the specific procedures used may vary from the descriptions in this blog post. For information on the frequency of use for the procedures outlined see the 2011 Abortion Supervisory Committee report, which can be viewed here.
Being a curious sort of person I decided this evening to have a look in to exactly how abortions are performed in the world today. After all, it does help to know as much about what you are discussing as possible (at least, I find. I know some folk just attempt to ‘wing it’ regardless). In so saying I was genuinely surprised to read not only how these things were done but the terms that are used to describe the procedures.
Twisting, tearing, cutting, dismembering and breaking are fairly prominent words. Certainly sounded like a terribly negative description .. It was at this point however that I realised I was on LifeSiteNews. I don’t know if you folks have heard of LifeSiteNews (if you haven’t you should definitely head over and check out their site!) but they are most certainly a pro-life leaning group to start with, and aren’t liable to present abortion nicely.
So in all fairness I decided to find a pro-choice rendition of the same thing – how abortions are performed. And you know what? It’s just as bad ..
A powerful vacuum tears the placenta from the uterus and dismembers the body of the developing child, sucking the pieces into an attached jar.
Anyone who still wishes to debate that abortion is morally justifiable (or is simply curious like myself) please read on. (Don’t worry there are no pictures to upset the squeamish).
There are many methods of abortion. The procedure used depends largely upon the stage of pregnancy and the size of the unborn child. Dr. J.C. Willke, in his book, Abortion: Questions and Answers (Hayes Publishing Co. Inc, Cincinnati, 1985), has divided the methods of abortion into three main categories: those that invade the uterus and kill the child by instruments which enter the uterus through the cervix; those that kill the preborn child by administration of drugs and then induce labour and the delivery of a dead baby; and, those that invade the uterus by abdominal surgery.
Dilation of the uterus is required in cervical methods of abortion. The usual method of dilation is to insert a series of instruments of increasing size into the cervix. A set of dilators, metallic curved instruments, are used to open the cervix sufficiently to accommodate the instruments of abortion. In contrast with a normal birth, where the dilation occurs slowly over a period of many hours, the forceful stretching by the abortionist to open the cervix takes a matter of seconds. This premature and unnatural stretching of the cervix can result in permanent physical injury to the mother.
Laminaria (dehydrated material, usually seaweed) is sometimes used to reduce damage to the cervix. Inserted into the cervix the day before the scheduled abortion, it absorbs water and swells, gradually pushing open the cervix in the process.
At Eight Weeks
At eight to nine weeks the eyelids have begun forming and hair appears. By the ninth and tenth weeks the preborn child sucks her thumb, turns somersaults, jumps, can squint to close out light, frown, swallow, and move her tongue.
At this early stage of development, suction abortions are performed using a smaller tube, requiring little dilation of the cervix. This is called “menstrual extraction.” However, if all the fetal remains are not removed, infection results, requiring full dilation of the cervix and a scraping out of the womb.
This is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anaesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.
Dilation and Curettage (D&C)
This method is similar to the suction method with the added insertion of a hook shaped knife (curette) which cuts the baby into pieces. The pieces are scraped out through the cervix and discarded [Note: This abortion method should not be confused with a therapeutic D&C done for reasons other than pregancy.]
At Twelve Weeks
By the end of the third month all arteries are present, including the coronary vessels of the heart. Blood is circulating through these vessels to all body parts.
The heart beat ranges during this fetal period from 110 to 160 beats per minute. All blood cells are produced by the liver and spleen, a job soon taken over by the bone marrow. White blood cells, important for immunity, are formed in the lymph nodes and thymus.
Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.
14 weeks: Muscles lenghten and become organized. The mother will soon start feeling the first flutters of the baby kicking and moving inside.
15 weeks: The fetus has an adult’s taste buds and may be able to savor the mother’s meals.
16 weeks: Five and a half inches tall and only six ounces in weight, eyebrows, eyelashes and fine hair appear. The child can grasp with his hands, kick, or even somersault.
At Eighteen Weeks
The fetus is now about 5 inches long. The child blinks, grasps, and moves her mouth. Hair grows on the head and body.
20 weeks: The child can hear and recognize mother’s voice. Though still small and fragile, the baby is growing rapidly and could possibly survive if born at this stage. Fingernails and fingerprints appear. Sex organs are visible. Using an ultrasound device, the doctor can tell if the child is a girl or a boy. The one on the left is a baby girl.
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)
This method is used up to 18 weeks’ gestation. Instead of the loop-shaped knife used in D&C abortions, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them.
Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection):
Used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother’s abdomen into the baby’s sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.)
At Six Months
Seen here at six months, the unborn child is covered with a fine, downy hair called lanugo. Its tender skin is protected by a waxy substance called vernix. Some of this substance may still be on the child’s skin at birth at which time it will be quickly absorbed. The child practices breathing by inhaling amnionic fluid into developing lungs.
Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion
This form of abortion uses chemicals developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co. which cause the uterus to contract intensely, pushing out the developing baby. The contractions are more violent than normal, natural contractions, so the unborn baby is frequently killed by them — some have even been decapitated. Many, however, have also been born alive.
Hysterotomy or Caesarean Section
Used mainly in the last three months of pregnancy, the womb is entered by surgery through the wall of the abdomen. The technique is similar to a Caesarean delivery, except that the umbilical cord is usually cut while the baby is still in the womb, thus cutting off his oxygen supply and causing him to suffocate. Sometimes the baby is removed alive and simply left in a corner to die of neglect or exposure.
At 30 Weeks
For several months, the umbilical cord has been the baby’s lifeline to the mother. Nourishment is transferred from the mother’s blood, through the placenta, and into the umbilical cord to the fetus. If the mother ingests any toxic substances, such as drugs or alcohol, the baby receives these as well.
32 weeks: The fetus sleeps 90-95% of the day, and sometimes experiences REM sleep, an indication of dreaming.
Five steps to a partial birth abortion:
- Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s legs with forceps.
- The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
- The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
- The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.
- The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
At 40 Weeks
The baby, now approximately seven and a half pounds, is ready for life outside its mother’s womb. At birth the placenta will detach from the side of the uterus and the umbilical cord will cease working as the child takes his first breaths of air. The child’s breathing will trigger changes in the structure of the heart and bypass arteries which will force all blood to now travel through the lungs.
Cross-posted from Life Institute, by NIAMH UI BHRIAIN
Last week I finally got to watch the acclaimed film 12 Years a Slave, which tells the story of Solomon Northup, a free black man from upstate New York, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in Louisiana.
It’s a harrowing and unflinching film that doesn’t spare the viewer – and rightly so.
A scene from the film 12 Years a Slave
Slavery, a practice largely brought to the United States by the Dutch and British empires, was legal in that jurisdiction (and beyond) for two hundred years. The cruelty endured by the men, women and children forced into slavery at that time has, with some exceptions, largely gone untold on film.
Steve McQueen’s movie upends all that by revealing the horrors of slavery in unsparing detail, and the impact is devastating
The scenes of pitiless exploitation, sexual abuse, starvation, humiliation, and savage beatings are so profoundly disturbing that their imprint is unforgettable.
The cruelty and degradation is almost unimaginable, but it happened again and again, and it was given legal sanction, not because slave owners truly believed those held in slavery to be less than human, but because it was economically advantageous for them to do so.
In the role of malevolent slaveowner, Edwin Epps, the actor Michael Fassbender gives an unsettling portrayal of a deranged, sadistic and horrendously violent man. History shows there were, sadly, too many like him, and too many others, who turned a blind eye to the suffering of their fellow human beings.
However, the violence seen in screen isn’t the most shocking thing about the film. What’s most disturbing is that Epps and others were protected by the law, and that nothing in the law could have stopped Epps, or any slaveowner, from beating and killing these men, women and children.
Of course we already knew that to be true, but historical fact is thrown into sharp relief when the film shows the consequences of that law, and the utter helplessness of those who were enslaved by it.
These people, known as slaves, were, under law, the property of the slaveowner. They were, under law, less than human. They could be abused, beaten, even killed, under law, because a decision had been made to allow slaveowners the right to own people as property.
To me, there were striking and obvious parallels with abortion. It is now legal in many countries throughout the world to kill a child in the womb.
Those laws have effectively given ownership of the child in the womb to another. The child is like a piece of property – or a non-human – which can be legally killed because of the decision of another.
The human rights of people held in slavery were subjugated to the dreadful notion that one human being had the right to main or kill another because of the owner’s ‘choice’ in deciding how to treat his ‘property’. Now the rights of preborn children have been subjugated to an industry which uses the same distorted logic of ‘my body, my choice’ to exploit women and kill their children.
We have not, it seems, learnt from the shameful lessons of history. The dehumanisation of our fellow human beings, which was the hallmark of slavery, is now being used to justify abortion and keep it legal.
The noble efforts of a brave few – including Solomon Northup – ensured slavery was legally abolished in most parts of the world by the mid-eighteenth century. It is long past time for the abortion industry to face the same abolition.
So usually when I write a post I take great pains to point out that abortion need not be a religious issue. In fact abortion can happily be refuted without having to mention *any* form of religious view or text. Today however I thought that I would reach out to the theists of the world and express why they too should consider abortion wrong.
So without further ado, here comes the teachings of the three largest religions on earth (Christianity, Islam or Hinduism – I’m picking only three because of time constraints).
Let’s start with some Bible verses on the subject -
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.
Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
This is no where near the end of the quotes. I’m sure one could almost literally be buried in them ..
Jesus Himself foretold a time of trouble and grief, when women with children would wish they had none. Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.” [Luke 23:27-30]
Livermore’s commentary says: “This passage, filled with inimitable pathos and sublimity, is found only in Luke. Our Saviour evidently refers here to the impending calamities of Jerusalem – ‘Fall on us’, &c. Rev. vi, 16. Vivid imagery, to express that death would be preferable to life.” [The Four Gospels: With a Commentary, By Abiel Abbot Livermore, 1844. p. 172]
Some say it was fulfilled in some way during the siege of Jerusalem, when people sought refuge in the caves and sewers under the city. But who really says this to the mountains and hills? No one says that! Not literally, and no normal person talks to mountains and hills. The mountains, hills, and rocks have no ears! I don’t think people were saying: “fall on us!” to the mountains and hills, during the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. This saying of Jesus was a prophecy, a metaphor. It is quoted from Hosea 6:10, and it is also mentioned in Revelation 6:15-17.
In Revelation, John shows that not only the women of Jerusalem, and the Jews, but all the men of the earth, from the least to the greatest, hide themselves in the dens and caves of the mountains, and call on the rocks to ‘fall on them’, and ask the hills to cover them!
Interpreting this prophecy, the mountains and hills of Israel were part of the land that God promised Abraham, and so ‘mountains’ represent the promises of God, that believers inherit through faith in Jesus Christ, which includes the promise of eternal life! Men and women hiding themselves in the dens of the mountains pictures people seeking salvation. They want to be there. As the song says, “Oh when the saints… go marching in… I want to be in that number, when the saints go marching in!”
People don’t want to get killed, they want to be “saved”, and “covered” by the promise of God to His saints! Many have their children baptized; Jews have their male babies circumcised, and many Muslim male babies are named Mohammad. People attend a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque, but even if they don’t, they usually retain their religious affiliation or label. Few are atheists. Some even get buried near a church, or synagogue. For centuries, Jews have buried their dead on the Mount of Olives, expecting some benefit at the resurrection. Most people accept the faith they were born into, fearing the consequences of not doing so, and the judgment to come.
By his death, Jesus provided the solution to the problem of death for those who come to him. Paul wrote, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” [Romans 5:8-9]
Jesus referred to himself as the good shepherd, who gives his life for the sheep. He said, “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber… I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” [John 10:1 & 9]
Additionally, for those of you that are Catholic, you might want to read this quote attributed to a great mystic of the Church, Marthe Robin. (Regardless it’s certainly something to think about) -
“The prophecy the the Apocalypse, concerning the death of two thirds of the human race, does not refer to an atomic war or any other catastrophe, but to a spiritual death.”
Additionally, no such discussion could leave out Humane Vitae which makes the Catholic Church’s anti abortion stance pretty clear.
Islam values human life. This is clearly expressed in the Qur’an where we are told that in the sight of God killing a human is a very serious matter (see Qur’an 5:32). The Qur’an teaches that on the Day of Judgement parents who killed their children will be under trial for that crime, and their children will be witnesses against them (see Qur’an 81:8-9).
People often fear that having more children will make them poor. In reply to that, the Qur’an says:
Do not slay your children for fear of poverty. We shall provide for them and for you (Qur’an 17:31).
Even in a case where one is already poor, the Qur’an insists that Allah will provide sustenance for us and for our children, and furthermore that Allah has made human life sacred (see Qur’an 6:151).
The right to life is God-given. No human should take away that right. The general rule, therefore, is that abortion is not permitted in Islam. However, Islam is a very practical religion. It includes principles to deal with exceptional cases. One such principle is that when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, an abortion may be performed. Although the lives of both mother and child are sacred, in this case it is better to save the principal life, the life of the mother. Even in this case, it would be better if the abortion is done before the foetus is 120 days old, for that is when the soul is breathed into the foetus. Islam does not permit abortion in other cases.
Women who have been victims of rape or incest naturally deserve sympathy and help. But a child conceived in this unfortunate manner still has a right to live. Of course this places an unwanted burden on the mother, but killing the child is not the right solution. To understand this point better, suppose someone sees the poorer sections of society as an unwanted burden on the rich. Would it be right then to kill off all the poor? Of course not. Why then should anyone decide that a child should be killed just because they are an unwanted burden? Society as a whole should help such a mother and relieve her as far as possible. But the child should not be killed.
Furthermore, the fact that such cases occur is an indication that people desperately need spiritual food. They need the pure teachings that will help them turn their minds away from adultery, rape, and incest. People need God. Can you help someone to turn to God?
If you thought perhaps relief was coming from the onslaught of anti abortion teachings .. well I fear you wont find it here. If anything Hindism is even more ‘prolife.’
Hinduism is an ancient religion practiced by hundreds of millions in India and abroad. One commentator describes it as
…more than just a creed: it is a total culture, a way of life based on the belief in the unity of all creation. Hindus, like Buddhists, see humankind not as an entity separate from animals, but rather as an integral part of the universe that includes all living creatures. Although Hinduism is well known for considering cows to be holy, in Hindu doctrine, all living creatures, including insects, plants, and trees, are thought to enjoy a kinship with one another and to be worthy of respect and life. (1)
According to Nine Beliefs of Hinduism, a tract published by the Himalayan Academy of San Francisco: “Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and therefore practice ahimsa, or nonviolence.” All life is sacred because all creatures are manifestations of the Supreme Being.
The Hindu practice of nonviolence is connected to a belief in reincarnation: the repeated re-embodiment of souls in different species of life. The karma generated in one’s present life determines whether one enjoys a higher or suffers a lower existence in the next reincarnation. Dr. T. K. Venkateswaran, a Hindu leader in the Parliament of the World’s Religions, writes that karma is “the moral and physical law of cause and effect by which each individual creates one’s own future destiny.” Hinduism teaches that there are 8,400,000 species of life, beginning with the microbes, rising through the fish, plants, insects, reptiles, birds, and animals to the humans and gods. According to their desires, living entities perpetually take birth in these species. These transmigrations are directed by the mind propelling the soul to newer and newer bodies. As Dr. Venkateswaran notes, “All souls are evolving and progressing towards union with God….The individual soul reincarnates, evolving through many births and deaths, until all the karmic results, good and bad, are resolved.” (2)
Hinduism teaches that abortion, like any other act of violence, thwarts a soul in its progress toward God. Why does the Hindu community seem silent on the abortion issue? Dr. K. S. Krishnan of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Kerala, India, offered this explanation for the apparent silence: “Personally, I feel that a sannyassi [monk] should have no chance of discussing the private life of a lady. That can only happen when a lady approaches him to become a disciple.” (3)
Nevertheless, Hindu scriptures and tradition have from the earliest of times condemned the practice of abortion, except when the life of the mother is in danger. Hinduism teaches that the fetus is a living, conscious person needing and deserving protection. Hindu scriptures refer to abortion as garha-batta (womb killing) and bhroona hathya (killing the undeveloped soul). A hymn in the Rig Veda (7.36.9, RvP, 2469) begs for protection of fetuses. The Kaushitaki Upanishad (3.1 UpR, 774) draws a parallel between abortion and the killing of one’s parents. The Atharva Veda (6.113.2 HE, 43) remarks that the fetus slayer, or brunaghni, is among the greatest of sinners (6.113.2). (4)
In modern times, India’s greatest apostle of nonviolence, Mohandas Gandhi, has written: “It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.” (5) The international periodical Hinduism Today acknowledges: “Across the board, Hindu religious leaders perceive abortion at any stage of fetal development as killing (some say murder)…and as an act that has serious karmic repercussions.” For example, Swami Kamalatmananda of the Ramakrishna Monastery in Madras, India, has said: “No human being has the right to destroy the fetus. If having a baby is economically and socially problematic, one can very well take precautions to avoid such unwanted birth rather than killing the baby. Precaution is better than destruction.” (6)
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is India’s greatest scholar, philosopher, cultural ambassador, author, and spiritual leader. His teachings on the subject of abortion are very clear:
They are killing the baby in the womb. How cruel! In this age of unwanted population, man is losing his compassion. When you kill a living entity, even an ant, you are interfering with its spiritual evolution, its progress. That living entity must again take on that same life form to complete its designated life term in that body. And the killer must return to pay for damages.(7)
Elsewhere Srila Prabhupada has written:
You are killing innocent cows and other animals–nature will take revenge. Just wait. As soon as the time is right, nature will gather all these rascals and slaughter them. Finished. They’ll fight among themselves. It is going on. Why? This is nature’s law. Tit for tat. You have killed. Now you kill yourselves.
They are sending animals to the slaughterhouse, and now they’ll create their own slaughterhouse….This is nature’s law. It’s not necessary that you be sent to the ordinary slaughterhouse. You’ll make a slaughterhouse at home. You’ll kill your own child–abortion. This is nature’s law.
Who are these children being killed? They are these meat-eaters. They enjoyed themselves when so many animals were killed, and now they’re being killed by their mothers.
People do not know how nature is working. If you kill, you must be killed. If you kill the cow who is your mother, then in some future lifetime your mother will kill you. Yes. The mother becomes the child, and the child becomes the mother.(8)
Commenting on the Hitopadesa, an ancient Sanskrit text, Satyanarayana dasa observes:
At present, people generally unite only for sensual pleasure, and children are often considered a regrettable accident….Abortion being accepted as standard practice, people conveniently forget that life begins at conception, by using such euphemisms as “tissue” when referring to the fetus. Although subconsciously they know that they are killing the baby in the womb, they prefer to say they are “terminating the pregnancy,” or “removing the tissue” so they may feel free of the guilt for murder, thus deluding themselves psychologically…they cannot escape the punishment for murder given by the laws of karma, and …in their next lives they will have to suffer the misery of repeatedly being aborted. (9)
Srila Prabhupada’s teachings indicate a spiritual link between humans and other sentient creatures: violence towards animals leads only toward violence against other human beings. Satya Narayana dasa similarly notes that people who commit violence against their unborn children will be subjected to the same violence in future reincarnations. The cycle of killing stops only through the practice of ahimsa toward all.
It is important to note here that the karmic repercussions of abortion, grave though they may be, are not “punishments” in the sense of being the personal vengeance of a wrathful, judgmental God. They are simply the consequences of violating a natural law–whether that law is violated out of ignorance, fear, or whatever other possible motive. These spiritual leaders are not intending to act as agents of such a God, but to help people become more mindful and compassionate in their behavior, and to promote the evolution of all the souls that may be harmed through an abortion–the child’s, the mother’s, the father’s, the abortion provider’s.
Honestly I think Satyanarayana dasa takes the cake for the easiest to read and most apt summation of the world today (here is is again, because it’s worth reading twice) -
At present, people generally unite only for sensual pleasure, and children are often considered a regrettable accident….Abortion being accepted as standard practice, people conveniently forget that life begins at conception, by using such euphemisms as “tissue” when referring to the fetus. Although subconsciously they know that they are killing the baby in the womb, they prefer to say they are “terminating the pregnancy,” or “removing the tissue” so they may feel free of the guilt for murder, thus deluding themselves psychologically…they cannot escape the punishment for murder given by the laws of karma, and …in their next lives they will have to suffer the misery of repeatedly being aborted
In closing, I’d also like to point out the approximate founding dates of these faiths and leave you with the thought that throughout the course of the world (certainly the last few thousand years) these have been (and still are) the teachings on abortion, from the eyes of the faithful.
Approx founding dates -
1,500 BC. Hinduism
30 AD. Christianity
610 AD. Islam
So whatever religion you hold dear, or whether you hold to religion at all – let’s take a stand!
- Lewis Regenstein, Replenish the Earth (New York: Crossroads, 1991), 221.
- T. K. Venkateswaran, “Hinduism, A Portrait,” in A Source Book for Earth’s Community of Religions, ed. Joel Beversluis (Grand Rapids: CoNexus, 1995), 40-44.
- Hinduism Today, March 1986.
- These verses, along with others, are listed on the Dancing With Siva Lexicon Page at http://planet-hawaii.com/~htoday/HimalayanAcademy/Publications/HinduLexicon/DWSLexicon.html.
- Mohandas Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers, Autobiographical Reflections (New York: Continuum, 1980), 150.
- Hinduism Today, March 1986.
- Hayagriva dasa, The Hare Krishna Explosion (San Francisco: Palace Press, 1985), 43.
- A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, “Slaughterhouse Civilization,” Back to Godhead 14:9 (Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1979).
- Satyanarayana dasa, Hitopadesa (Faridabad, India: Jiva Institute, 1997), 20-21.
Perusing online, I came across some references to the Olmec culture (1500-400BCE), now a part of Mexico. In their sculptures and writings about the Were-jaguar, or jaguar children, it seems that their depictions of these demi-gods correlate with Down Syndrome children. Some of their other gods also seem to have been children with spinda bifidia or other mental or physical disabilities. Perhaps, in order to explain the physical and mental differences present in those with Down Syndrome, spinda bifidia, dwarfism, leprosy and the like, the Olmecs made them divine. Other past cultures such as the Romans and Greeks considered those with Down Syndrome as feeble, (the Romans having laws in place for their elimination), some Medieval Europeans connected them with witchcraft, and others considered them as holy. The latter consideration was mainly extant in Eastern cultures such as that of the Olmecs.
Anyway, follow this link to read in more detail!
Yesterday the famed Rolling Stone magazine decided to nail its flag firmly to the abortion activism flagpole by publishing a poorly researched anti pro-life attack column titled: The Seven Most Common Lies About Abortion – Debunking anti-choice misinformation about women’s health.
It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to see the lack of balance in this article – heck, the title gives the game away right from the outset.
The term ‘anti-choice’ is not a journalistic phrase, it’s the terminology used by abortion activists who hate the pro-life movement, and referring to abortion as “women’s health” is another favorite marketing deception employed by abortion activists.
As you can imagine, the article also plays fast and loose with the truth, opting instead for misinformation, falsehoods, abortion activist talking points, and lots of logically fallacious ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to oppose the killing of unborn human beings in the womb.
Several times in the article they use the Guttmacher Institute as a source for information, and they even refer to them as: “a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights.”
This is the very same Guttmacher Institute that is named after a former president of Planned Parenthood, and which was founded by Planned Parenthood and operated for many years as one of its divisions.
Yes, that’s the same Planned Parenthood that is the United States largest provider of for-profit abortion.
So, you’ll excuse me for doubting the credibility of the information contained in this Rolling Stone article.
Things get really nasty…
The author of this column, after initially making pro-women overtures, then proceeds to promote several anti-women positions.
Firstly, she boldly, and rather arrogantly declares that post-abortion psychological pain is a lie.
So, does that mean that all those women who experience psychological harm as a result of their abortion are liars?
Or are they just delusional, and in need of psychiatric treatment for their self-induced psychosis about abortion wounding them?
This sort of anti-women bile is sadly typical of a lot of abortion activists, and it makes an absolute mockery of their claims to be ‘pro-women’.
It’s ugly stuff, and it’s a betrayal of authentic feminism in favour of abortion-promoting ideologies (ideologies that usually favour the male proclivity for sexual irresponsibility and abandoning women.)
And remember, all of this is coming from a journalist who, earlier in the article, accuses pro-lifers of not allowing “women to share their nuanced, personal abortion experiences.”
The hypocrisy is both astounding and vile.
Then came the absurd claim that laws which require abortion providers to operate according to best-practice medical standards are “onerous and unnecessary”.
Yes, that’s right, apparently laws which require abortion clinics to provide basic standards of protection and care for their female clients are something women should be opposed to.
The insanity of this proposal is quite something to behold.
Just consider the following quote from the article:
“Examples [of these laws] include requiring abortion clinics to be Ambulatory Surgical Centers, requiring that all abortions performed past a certain point be done in a hospital, or requiring all abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. On the surface, these sound like benevolent requirements, but in practice, they are completely medically unnecessary and serve only to shutter otherwise functional abortion providers.”
It astounds me to think that a seemingly intelligent person could consider any of these basic medical safety requirements to be “unnecessary”, or that a provider offering major surgery could be considered to be “functional” without such basic precautions in place.
And then the article states (emphasis added):
“Since [these] laws surfaced in 2010, more than 50 safe abortion clinics have closed.”
How can an abortion provider be considered “safe” if they don’t adhere to basic medical safety guidelines?!
If Rolling Stone truly is the serious journalistic venture that it likes to think it is, then a future edition will feature equal column space for a pro-life feminist response to this terribly unbalanced and accuracy-challenged article.
If not, then I will be forced to believe that Rolling Stone Magazine has sold out women for thirty pieces of pro-abortion ideological silver.