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

a reply to: dawnstar

Is that the same case you have tried to use in the past and another ATS member pointed out the fact that it wasn't the hospital itself but the doctor who made the choice and you decided to ignore that evidence?...

Anyways, the words of Peter Singer "progressive philosopher" says it all.

Taking Life: Humans
Peter Singer
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217
...
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.
...

www.utilitarian.net...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

two separate cases, the one you are referring to hasn't made it to the courts if I am remembering right, the hospital is claiming what you said, the family is claiming that it was hospital policy....
and I am not sure if it was even in the US to be honest, too long ago...

nope this one is Tamesha Means ya know the women who started miscarrying and had to go to the hospital three times before they would actually treat her...she started delivering that baby on her third visit in the reception area if I am remembering right. by this time, she had a nice infection taking hold.
the case went through court but was thrown out because she sued the council of bishops for the policy that they force all the hospitals under their control instead of the hospital or it's staff.

by the way, the piece by Peter Singer seems to be aimed more at explaining why he thinks abortion is wrong than it is trying to convince anyone that killing babies is right. the first one you posted was more in line in what you are trying to claim, but it's just one crazy lady from, if I am remembering right, australia???

why don't you pro-lifers just spend some time asking yourself why any women would chose to end a pregnancy instead of carrying it to term? seriously, I mean, could it be that her living family is depending on that paycheck that she will lose because she will no longer be able to work?? well gee, then maybe something could be done about that..... buy, oh, ya, the employers are god's in the eyes of the republicans, can't do anything to hinder their quest for higher profits. is the daddy threatening her into aborting??? oh ya, that's right some of yas on this board thinks that he should have the right to coerce her into an abortion...
but, na, they are all just a bunch of selfish women, just thinking about themselves....

I've got three sons. when I was pregnant with my third, my oldest wasn't even two years old yet. my husband had decided he was gonna be out driving truck across country so he wasn't around to help... and no one else was!!! and guess what?? for some reason, I really couldn't walk too well at times, was being told to stop lifting my children, but, gee.... a two year old gets into all kinds of things. I had no choice!! regardless of weather I trusted my footing or not, regardless of what my doctor said, regardless of weather it caused me pain or not... those two kids I had needed to be taken care of. somehow I got through it and then I had three kids, under the age of three, one strapped to the front of me in a carrier, one in a stroller, and one holding the side of that stroller, walking to the store everyday for the food we need, which I balanced on the top of the stroller hoping that the canopy would give out... because I didn't have a running car.
at least take the time to ask yourself why a women would chose to end a pregnancy instead of being a judgemental witch!

a reply to: dawnstar

Peter Singer is one of many "progressives" who is in favor of abortion even on the third trimester. He is conceding that the view used by the pro-abortion crowd that human fetuses have no rights, and that in his opinion there is no sanctity to life that this view could indeed also be used to excuse other killings of humans. But he goes beyond that and states that this shouldn't be seen as a horror, and that it is the refusal to killing that should be the horror. It is clear what he means in that statement. Then he hides his meaning in a plethora of rhetorical nonsense which only aims at excusing the killings of innocent humans as a necessity.

That's without mentioning that this thread in question is about the third trimester in a pregnancy and the fact that abortion is not viable at that stage to saving a woman's life like you tried to claim.

Women are already performing abortions, and up to the second trimester it is legal, but now the pro-abortion crowd, including Hillary and yourself among others want to extend abortion to the third trimester despite the Roe vs Wade ruling. With Hillary as President she will dismantle even Roe vs Wade and would make it "a right for women to murder their babies even on the day they are due. Then once the rest of the progressives embrace that view, which already most of you here seem to embrace, the "pro-abortion crowd" will concentrate in "after birth abortion" and how to make it legal.

Late term abortions are not done to save a woman's life. At that stage an abortion carries more risk to the woman.

I do wonder if in the past progressives also called it a "witch hunt" when people pointed out that the "progressive belief" that "at certain stages human life has no right to existence" would lead to genocide...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The "pro-choice movement" doesn't want to admit that even a human fetus has rights at any time.

Operative words being 'any time'.

I won't admit to it because I don't agree with it. It's a human person when, and only when, the ability to consciously experience existence is there. That's not at conception. These Rights are afforded to people. People are conscious beings. It doesn't make any sense to grant them rights as a human being until they have developed into one. So... "any time" doesn't fly. Not unless we are using some religious argument that ignores neuroscience.

A question do you want abortion illegal?.

An unborn child should have rights and they do.

Those rights are outweighed by the mothers rights however.

It's that simple.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Is an "unborn child" at the moment of conception? During a certain stage of development?

If it's at the moment of conception, and not when reaching a critical point in development, then why in your opinion should we deem it a human child with the rights of one?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

When it becomes an "unborn child" is irrelevant.

But for arguments sake let's say it's at conception.
If I force a woman to take a morning after pill that's wrong.
If she takes the morning after pill that's her choice and not wrong.

The mother's rights outweighing the child's rights continue until the birth of the child.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Former abortionist: Abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother

Even former abortionists can be delusional crackpots!
Such is the fallacy of authority.

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." - Demosthenes

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

When it becomes an "unborn child" is irrelevant.

It's very relevant if you understand my angle. Do you disagree with my points concerning how human life should be defined as it pertains to the fetus? I'm applying that to how I think we should both apply morality and law.

But for arguments sake let's say it's at conception.

Im just not willing to do that without good reason. Why are we doing this? The religious spark of life?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The "pro-choice movement" doesn't want to admit that even a human fetus has rights at any time.

Operative words being 'any time'.

I won't admit to it because I don't agree with it. It's a human person when, and only when, the ability to consciously experience existence is there. That's not at conception. These Rights are afforded to people. People are conscious beings. It doesn't make any sense to grant them rights as a human being until they have developed into one. So... "any time" doesn't fly. Not unless we are using some religious argument that ignores neuroscience.

I would sgree with you about that.

I'm more pro choice and finding these 9 month abortions unbelievable.

A woman has every right to seek abortion, whether it be for health reasons or elective.

It doesn't even make sense to me if a woman discovers she is pregnant and for whatever reason she is not wanting this child, that she allows it to go on for so long where she is 'showing' and everybody knows she's pregnant and she herself is developing a bond or love for the child ( feeling it moving inside etc) and she gets the abortion too late. Most women would get the abortion soon after discovering there's a pregnancy and just not tell anyone. Nobody would know or needs to know.

In cases of a deformed fetus an amniocentesis ( needle injected) is done that can tell you the child is not developing normally and you are given a choice then to abort it, as opposed to bringing a disabled child into the world. This might be done when the mother is 40 yrs old and it's her first pregnancy, there's a high risk it can have Down's syndrome. Not to suggest there's anything " wrong" with a child who has this syndrome if a parent is of the belief they will love the child no matter. That's their choice to make, but not everyone is equipped to care for a child like this and the child is brought into the world being neglected or unwanted ( after the birth) or they simply cannot afford to care for a child that needs extensive medical care.

I myself, think it's wrong to knowingly bring a deformed child into this world.
I was born normal, but I'm now severely disabled following a massive stroke. So I think why would you do this to a person ? I suppose if you're born this way , you really don't know you are 'abnormal' and that might be all fine and dandy but once they start school and around other children they will get picked on , which isn't nice and I do believe they know they are an outcast. For me, I have my previous life to compare it to. I know full well I'm being treated differently now. My life is hard and it's clear I am often a burden to my family, even when they say I'm not. I'm not deaf and I can hear them saying things like " I don't want to take her home, take her to the bathroom, you do it" . I'm not invited to some things because I'm a pain . Things I used to get invited to. Etc, etc. So you are not treated the same and I'm not a fan of people saying you are and can be. It's simply not true.

Either way this topic is a hard one to discuss and us always going to offend ' one side'

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I don't think I do understand your angle.

Regarding whether it's at conception etc. I'm not sure you can really point to an exact time. The question turns to potential I guess. Has kleenex helped millions of teenage boys with genocide? Should a woman be shunned for every period she has?

I don't think so, although I also believe it's wrong to force someone to have the morning after pill, and I don't want people stealing my kleenex's (hasn't been a problem so far).

I just don't think it's that relevant however as the mothers rights trump those of the child, always.

To put it crudely, I don't care if the child is writing philosophy in the womb. If the mother chooses, I will happily pass the coat hanger.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm content with how the current laws are....
in most states, it's banned with only a few exceptions, the ones I've seen has been health concerns for the mother, health of the fetus (severe defects), and in a few cases, possibly rape...

so, since you claim that no abortions are being done because of concerns for the mother's health, because some doctors says so, although I also provided a doctor that says in some rare cases there are, and another piped up and supported my claim..... you should be very happy that none of them could possibly be happening in south carolina!!!

which just might be a true statement since there are only four doctors doing third trimester abortions in the country and I am sure they aren't acting like traveling salesmen.

so, let's just cut to the chase, why do you think that a women would suddenly want an abortion in the third month?

originally posted by: dawnstar

I'm content with how the current laws are....
in most states, it's banned with only a few exceptions, the ones I've seen has been health concerns for the mother, health of the fetus (severe defects), and in a few cases, possibly rape...

so, since you claim that no abortions are being done because of concerns for the mother's health, because some doctors says so, although I also provided a doctor that says in some rare cases there are, and another piped up and supported my claim..... you should be very happy that none of them could possibly be happening in south carolina!!!
...

You are content huh?... You are content of being disingenuous? Your first argument was that third trimester abortions are necessary to save women's lives and most of them are done to save women's lives, yet you don't present any evidence to support your narrative. Instead you go off tangent claiming that women have suffered because in "religious clinics" infections were not found in time. But I find it extremely ironic how you don't point out how many women have died in "progressive abortion clinics" after an abortion, including women who had abortions on the third trimester. Women have had infections, which were not caught on time, also in abortion clinics.

But I digress, since your goal always is to change your narrative once you have been proven wrong, and instead of staying on topic, your argument is to try to derail the thread.

If there is proof that "most third trimester abortions are done to save lives" like you have claimed, then prove it and stop trying to derail the thread.

your proof was one doctor, I gave you another doctor, that says that yes, occasionally the health of the mother is the reason. I think I also came danged close to saying I was wrong about the most being done for the health and welfare of the mother in the last thread...again taken from the same source. it was in one of the quotes from the article.

there is also the matter of just how you define a late term abortion. when does a pregnancy become "late term" compared to where is a fetus considered viable outside of the womb. it removing a non-viable fetus from the womb by any method considered an abortion if the fetus is non-viable? I believe so. all in all, yes, some late term abortions, at least in my defination of it, are done because of the health of the mother, often times, by inducing labor. as proof I would like to refer you back to tamesha means, who was miscarrying but refused any treatment for three days. her fetus, although doomed no matter what treatment was given to her, wasn't viable outside of the womb, so the catholic hospital just sent her home, because they had a policy that prohibited abortions.

so why don't you answer my question....
why do you think a pregnant women would travel half way across the country after begging and borrowing money from family and friends to come up with $15,000 dollars it costs, for an abortion in the last trimester of her pregnancy?

www.yahoo.com...

a reply to: dawnstar

You did not give any proof from any doctors. You gave the claims from an ACLU lawyer, Brigitte Amiri. Show us evidence that at the third trimester abortions are used to save women's life. Even one of the ATS members who is pro-choice admits in this thread that at the third trimester abortions are done because of health problems in the baby, such as down syndrome and not to save a woman's life. At that stage is safer for the woman to have a cesarean section, inducing labor etc, but not by performing an abortion which at that stage has too many risks.

If a human fetus having down syndrome is excuse enough to terminate their lives, then that same argument can be used to kill a newborn with down syndrome. Not to mention how many adults and children live to this day with down syndrome and have a happy and constructive life.

Abortion on the third trimester is not about "saving women's lives" like you have claimed.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dear Donald Trump: I'm an OB-GYN. There are no 9-month abortions.

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.

The facts are that 98.6 percent of abortions happen before 21 weeks. Most of the terminations at or after 21 weeks are very wanted pregnancies with serious fetal anomalies. Some are for the health of the mother and a very small percentage are for personal reasons.

www.vox.com...

again:

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.

a reply to: dawnstar

That does not prove your original claim that most abortions on the third trimester are for saving a woman's life does it? In fact, that statement from that doctor claims only some of the abortions on the third trimester are done to save a woman's life. Most are done because the human fetus might have some defects, including down syndrome. Then we would have to get into a discussion on whether people with down syndrome cannot have a happy and fulfilled life, which they can, and many do.

Then again.

Dublin Declaration

OVER 1013 signatures so far. Sign Today!

DUBLIN DECLARATION ON MATERNAL HEALTHCARE
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

www.dublindeclaration.com...

a reply to: dawnstar

And btw, that's not even taking in consideration that the case Doe v. Bolton made it so that "risk to the mother's health" could be ANY reason the woman, and doctor decided. Originally the law in Georgia made abortion only legal in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother. But Doe v. Bolton changed that. In fact, the case Doe v. Bolton states:

...
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
...

www.usccb.org...

So when that doctor you excerpted claims that there are some health concerns during the third trimester, it doesn't mean the life of the woman is at risk. The woman could merely be claiming that she cannot endure being pregnant, and because of Doe v. Bolton that is a "health concern"... In essence, the case made it so that the woman's whim on not wanting to have the child could be seen as "affecting her health".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This video is pretty rough stuff, but probably clinically accurate. The CDC reports abortion statistics for every year. They are usually a few years behind and not comprehensive, mostly because abortion surveillance is voluntary. BUT, if your'e curious:

www.cdc.gov...

The Guttmacher Institute also collects their own data.

www.guttmacher.org...

Occasionally, they offer some data on the reasons for abortions. Johnston collected all of this data into a nice report:

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

Here's the low-down, abortions provided across the analyzed data from 1996-2005. If you take all of the reported abortion reasons for rape, incest, physical life/health of the mother, health of the fetus and mental health of the mother; it equals between 1-13% of all abortions performed in the US from 1994-2005.

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES

rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.1 % (0.01-0.2 %)
physical health of mother 0.8 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother ?? (0.1-8 %)

elective 98.3% (87-99 %)
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility --? (32 %)
--economic --30% (25-40 %)
--to avoid adjusting life --? (16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship --? (12-13 %)
--enough children already --? (4-8 %)
--sex selection --0.1% (