It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:20 PM
a reply to: cosmickat

There are stories all over the net, I imagine some where in the middle is the truth.

• Two doctors at a New Jersey abortion clinic spoke with a North Jersey newspaper under condition of anonymity. Both independently stated that their clinic was performing roughly 1,500 partial-birth abortions per year, most of which are elective and not for medical reasons.

Dr. Martin Haskell, who is credited with inventing it (PBA). In a 1993 interview with American Medical News, Haskell said: I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range…. In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective t-for-medical-reasons/

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:34 PM
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

In the third trimester human fetuses can feel pain. There are women, and men who fall in the category your mother falls on, but essentially the pro-choice movement is a movement pro-abortion. A movement that tries to change the law, even Roe vs Wade, to give women the right to abort even on the third trimester. You claiming the contrary is not going to change the fact that the "pro-choice movement" is in fact "pro-abortion".

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:34 PM
a reply to: Bluntone22

A long, long time ago when doctors made house calls and arrived via horse and buggy, there were certain instruments in his little black bag that were never talked about and, thankfully, rarely employed. Except when labor was too long, the baby too big to exit naturally, and/or the mother's life was in jeopardy. These instruments were used to crush the baby's skull in order to deliver it and save the mother...needless to say, this was before the introduction of caesarian birth. So, yes the need to save a mother's life and forfeit the baby's DID at one time demand some extraordinary measures. Thankfully, we have come a long, long way since then...but, we still have a ways to go ahead of us. One simple thing, yet seemingly impossible for some to grasp, is for women AND men to use common sense and PRECAUTION in their relationships so that the need (or "want") for an abortion is not needed for ANY other reason other than to save the respective life of mother and/or child.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:37 PM
How about the Anti-Abortion groups focus their collective energy on an issue such as Sex Education in Schools and how to teach properly their children on birth controls, stds, etc, you know instead of being ignorant and letting them figure it out on their own because it is too taboo.

It would be great if they could do that because it would highly reduce the high amount of many abortions and also teach this current and new generation which will lead onto the next and the next etc...and then go back full time being anti-abortion to clear up any slack? Or even do 2 things at the same time and be Anti-Abortion and bringing forth full sexual education into schools.

Ah but I am dreaming.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:41 PM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Didn't answer my question or back up your statement...

Saying it is up to the state is not the same as saying it is protected by the constitution.

Nor answer why we should listen to this one doctor vs the others that say differently.

I did...

The tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now let me ask you...

What does the Constitution say about CHILDREN'S RIGTHS?... It doesn't say anything, does it? In fact, the Constitution doesn't even mention women, unless you are smart enough to understand that when the Declaration of Independence states "We the people", and "All men" it actually is referring to all men and women... But I guess, in your mind, since the U.S. Constitution does not mention children and their rights it means children have no rights at all until they are adults... Right?...

edit on 22-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

edit on 22-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:41 PM
a reply to: seasonal

two speaking behind anonymity...meh..well I guess it all adds to the debate. Ronald Fitzimmons, also mentioned in that article is a self confessed lobbyist as well as an abortion provider. Which, is where the problem lies. The issue of abortion is a medical and legal issue...not a political bargaining chip...least I don't think it should be.
Politicians are probably the least qualified to influence any part of the debate.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:57 PM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Nor answer why we should listen to this one doctor vs the others that say differently.

Oh, and btw, please go ahead and show evidence that during the third trimester if complications arise which can endanger a woman's health that most women have days to be able to perform an abortion. It takes days to perform an abortion, when a woman's health is at risk that late most often they don't have days, not to mention that being that late in the pregnancy performing an abortion increases dramatically the risks to the mothers health.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:59 PM
a reply to: MuonToGluon

you are dreaming.

I cannot reconcile that the same pro - life campaigners will support effective sex education in schools...or agree to their tax dollars being spent on effective birth control..including morning after pills.
I dont know about now, but when I lived in the states..about 20 years ago ...I had to pay for the pill?

It's extremely ironic that the same religous values that oppose contraception and sex education will also vehemently come down against provision for abortion. When in the last few thousand years has abstinence actually worked ?

The high moral ground taken by pro-lifers is questionable. Where do all these children go who are to be born to mothers who are forced to give birth? Who will feed them, house them? educate them? Are the pro - lifers really or pro - birth?

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:04 PM
a reply to: cosmickat

.not a political bargaining chip...least I don't think it should be.

This is used to divide the people, just like guns, taxes, sexual orientation, religion, gender, political party, left, right, old/young, rich and poor...... We are easily defeated if we stand alone.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:08 PM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Nor answer why we should listen to this one doctor vs the others that say differently.

In fact here you go.

What Might Go Wrong in the Third Trimester?

Point to us where in that website it says that abortion is a treatment for any of the "third trimester problems that can occur"...

All I see in there, among others is cesarean section. Nowhere does it say abortion can save the women's life on the third trimester, and nowhere does it say an abortion might be necessary.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:08 PM
a reply to: seasonal


posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:21 PM
a reply to: cosmickat

You are free to buy your pill if you want. But what you really want is for others to pay for your pills is it not? You even state "I had to buy my pills when I was in the states"... As if it was bad for you having to take responsibility for your own decisions.

In fact the whole "abortion is a women's rights" revolves around the claim that since "it is supposedly a health problem" that the tax payers, even those who disagree with you on abortion, have to be forced to pay for the pills/condoms etc of other people, and even help pay for the abortion of other women. It is never about "personal responsiblity" when it comes to the "pro-choice crowd"... It's all about getting free pills and eventually free abortions.

BTW, and once again, the red tape surrounding adoption is not an excuse to say "because more children are not adopted abortion should be completely legal even on the third trimester."

Sorry, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. Red tape is what is causing the delays, and even the denials in adoption.

Rage at the adoption red tape that denies a child a home
Why is so little being done for the 65,000 children languishing in the care system?

By Judith Woods

7:30AM GMT 24 Nov 2012


Friends of mine – a clever, funny, affectionate couple – are going through the Kafkaesque adoption process at the moment, with astonishingly good grace.

They are prepared – in fact, happy – to take a child, or indeed siblings, with learning difficulties, which ought to catapult them to the top of the queue. But no.

She is a therapist with an extensive background in children with special needs. Yet she has been told she must get more experience – with special needs children. He is on his second marriage and already has two children, whom he sees weekly – but he has been told he needs more experience with kids.

You couldn’t make it up. Which is partly why I was horrified, but not surprised, at new figures showing that seven out of eight would-be adoptive parents drop out of the application process, because they are either too daunted or turned down flat.

edit on 22-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:02 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

should have explained that bit about the pill point was, I had never had to pay for contraception prior to living in the US. I was surprised that the pill was not free as it always had been when I used it before ( out of the US )That's all.
But to expand the point further...the majority of women seeking abortions are from lower income brackets, so maybe they should not have to pay to ensure that they protect themselves from getting pregnant? Correlation? perhaps

But yes..contraception should be free....for everyone.

I didn't even attempt to make an argument for free abortions...likewise, neither did I argue that abortions should be legal 3rd trimester? where did I say that?

What I said was the moral arguments put forward by pro-lifers are focused on birth and the rights of a foetus and the belief that the moment of conception is when a foetus should gain rights...they are pro-birth, rather than pro-life.

I didn't talk about red tape regarding adoption either. I mentioned pro-life v pro-birth.
But I fail to understand how you, as somone who is insisting that all pregnancies should be carried to full term and delivered regardless of the pregnant woman's circumstances, can somehow separate the fact that the result is going to be a baby who then needs to be nurtured, fed, clothed, housed, educated.

One thing has nothing to do with the other? why hasn't it? ( Talking about legal abortion here...not a late term procedure to terminate a pregnancy )

If a woman, say with mental/emotional health issues gets pregnant ..with no support, no capability, no stable home...should her womb just be utilised as a carrier to produce another statistic to be added to the care system?

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:08 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No saying it is up to the state is not saying it is protected by the constitution.

And yes it doesn't directly say children are protected but no I don't think that means they don't have rights but nice try. The statement was the a fetus is directly protected when it clearly is not.

And actually when they first wrote all men, they literally excluded women from that.

Oh and every doctor with a professional opinion that an abortion is needed late term needs to go look at that site huh?

edit on ndSat, 22 Oct 2016 21:09:26 -0500America/Chicago1020162680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:20 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I guess it depends on how you define the term late term....
in my defination, it doesn't necessarily mean that the fetus is viable...

Abortions for the health of the mother only happen before 24 weeks, which is the generally accepted cut-off for fetal viability. After 24 weeks, if a pregnant person is sick enough that she needs to deliver for her health, obstetricians either induce labor or perform a C-section, and the baby is attended by the neonatal intensive care unit.

since "late term" seems have several different meaning, and often it earlier than the 24 weeks, if the mother has to have the pregnancy terminated before that time, inducing labor would be a means of abortion, if part of the defination is the death of the baby.

my source is a doctor also, by that way....

However, even with the most on-the-ball OB-GYN, it can still be a race to get all the information and give a pregnant person time to think it over before 24 weeks. Sometimes the drastic nature of the problem isn’t fully realized until the pregnancy progresses. Other times a woman is carrying a fetus incompatible with life and thought she would go to term and let nature take its course, but then she realizes she just can’t. Who among us should judge those women?
When these procedures do happen, they could be an induction of labor, or some highly skilled providers can perform dilation and extraction procedures past 24 weeks. The closer to term (40 weeks), the more likely the procedure will be an induction of labor. So at 36 or 37 weeks, in most situations, the doctor will simply induce labor and after delivery not resuscitate the baby. However, there are rare medical situations where that might not be advisable, so the option of a dilation and extraction allows women in these situations to avoid a C-section.

so, my doctor seems to be saying that there are some rare medical situations where simple induction of labor isn't advisable, and it might be a choice between dilation and extraction or a c-section... which is a major operation, which possibly there could be a medical reason why the c-section might be a tad bit dangerous.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:45 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

from the sources I have read, there are instances when a c section is not you say if there are medical issues for the mother.

from Dr Jen Gunter OB-GYN

Health of the Mother

"This definitely happens between 20 and 24 weeks. The most likely scenario is ruptured membranes and an infection in the uterus. The treatment of this is delivery or the infection will spread and kill the mother, however, someone with lupus or renal disease or heart disease (for example) could have a deterioration of their health and with their providers make the decision to have a termination. After 25 weeks this would simply be a c-section or an induction of labor and the baby would go to the neonatal intensive care unit. Between 24-25 weeks there could be some leeway as conditions that are serious enough to require delivery at 24 weeks often also have devastating effects on the fetus. For example, the fetus could be so severely growth restricted making viability at 24 weeks unlikely and a woman with a severe heart condition may not elect to risk her health with a c-section for a likely non viable pregnancy and choose a termination. "

Going back to the point you raised..what is classed as late term?

Obviously... full term, there is a baby, which has every chance at viability. For some of this crazy political rhetoric to suggest that doctors are delivering babies, full term, using some insane form of abortion procedure to murder just that ...insane. Full term is a delivery...either induced or c section..not an abortion. Anything else is infanticide.

It angers me that this issue..where there is a clear division of belief (and I say everyone is entitled to make up their own mind about that) is being used as a political sword. With mostly fabrication and lies being spun in political arenas that can actually rhreaten the welfare / lives of women and children.
edit on 22/10/16 by cosmickat because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:46 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

In the third trimester human fetuses can feel pain.

While the OP might be confined to third trimester, your name-calling of "pro-abortion crowd" was obviously all-encompassing, and so my comment was in context to all abortions.

A movement that tries to change the law, even Roe vs Wade

Well I am pro-choice and i'm not supporting the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Trump of course is (as per last debate).

essentially the pro-choice movement is a movement pro-abortion.

...and if pro-lifers are against all abortions (yes some are medically necessary) then they can't really claim to be pro-life when they put the life of the mother in jeopardy. What demeaning naming convention can we make up for pro-lifers to match your "pro-abortion crowd"?

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:53 PM
This is the kind of topic, and thread, that explains why conservatives have earned a reputation for stupidity.

I mean, how could an intelligent person believe that there is no such thing as a lifesaving abortion?

edit on 22/10/16 by Astyanax because: of more explanation.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:10 PM
a reply to: Sremmos80

I said the law, Roe vs Wade does give the right to life to a human fetus at third trimester... As for your claim of "nice try"... It wasn't a try at all, it's the truth. There are many rights that are not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but it does state that rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people. That's where Roe vs Wade falls in. It was decided that at some point the human fetus should also be protected, and they decided it should be on the third trimester.

The "pro-choice movement" doesn't want to admit that even a human fetus has rights at any time. That's part of where the whole pro-abortion argument is all about. Since, according to the pro-choice movement, human fetuses have no rights, then the woman can decide to kill it. That's the decision women are making when aborting a human fetus.

Are there times when it is necessary to have an abortion? yes, there are, and it is a decision that shouldn't be made lightly. The pro-choice movement has been dehumanizing HUMAN fetuses for decades. Decades ago Roe vs Wade was seen as a win, but in the last few years the pro-choice movement want to even be able to kill human fetuses late in the pregnancy.

Heck, as I explained previously there is already a movement within the progressive ranks which also want to extend the right for parents to kill new born babies even if the baby is perfectly healthy. This same movement argues that babies are essentially the same as a human fetus, and as thus have no rights. This is part of what the pro-life movement is trying to stop. The pro-choice movement don't seem to understand where this belief that human fetuses have no rights is taking us.

There are progressive doctors, researchers, and philosophers who believe that even babies have no moral right to life, and that parents should be able to decide to murder them even if they are perfectly healthy.

J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

Law, ethics and medicine


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2, Francesca Minerva3

Author Affiliations

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012


Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we callafter-birth abortion(killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Other progressive philosophers who would even claim refusing to kill/euthanise should be regarded with horror, and not the fact that this slippery road the pro-choice crowd is taking us can in fact lead us down to genocide.

Taking Life: Humans
Peter Singer
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217
In dealing with an objection to the view of abortion presented in Chapter 6, we have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer - and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. It has, they point out, been rejected by doctors since the fifth century B.C., when physicians first took the Oath of Hippocrates and swore 'to give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel'. Moreover, they argue, the Nazi extermination programme is a recent and terrible example of what can happen once we give the state the power to MI innocent human beings.

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that - as we saw in Chapter 4 - collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.

Even progressive journalists and other public figures are brainwashing people into thinking that, according to them, not only do human fetuses have no rights, but that life begins when parents want, that it depends on the parents feelings.

You don't see where this is leading because you have swallowed whole the brainwashing, this belief that "human fetuses have no rights, and in the minds of many progressives, neither do newborns have human rights". But this is the road this line of thinking is taking us in. Genocide.

What happens when even the "progressive belief that newborns don't have rights either" is also used to dehumanize people and children who have mental disabilities and in fact can't feed themselves, or take care of themselves?

What happens when once again this belief is extended to include the mentally disabled, and other people who can't take care of themselves? It has happened in the past, and this road that "human fetuses and newborns have no rights" is taking us to, this same road has been taken in the past and it can happen again if people embrace this belief that at no time human fetuses, or even newborns have no rights.

edit on 22-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

edit on 22-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:22 PM
a reply to: cosmickat

meanwhile in catholic hospitals, women are being refused abortion, inducing labor or much of anything else when pregnancy goes sideways and they are miscarrying the baby, even when there's infection present.

Tamesha Means was one of those women. She was in the 18th week of pregnancy, happily awaiting the birth of her child, when her water broke. She rushed to the hospital, but unfortunately because of the bishops’ rules, the hospital didn’t tell Tamesha that the pregnancy was doomed and that the safest course was an abortion. The hospital sent her home — not once, but twice — while she was in excruciating pain and developing an infection. Only once she began to deliver during her third visit did the hospital start providing care.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in