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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:58 AM
From Wiki
"since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Between 1997 and 1990 77 death threats were made with 250 made between 1991 and 1999 . Attempted murders in the U.S. included: IN 1985 45% of clinics reported bomb threats, decreasing to 15% in 2000. One fifth of clinics in 2000 experienced some form of extreme activity."

Please don't call yourselves pro-life, you're anything but.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:54 AM

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That is insane. Third trimester abortions are rare and illegal almost everywhere unless to save the life of the mother.

So, this one doctor notes one case where the mother was stabilized and a cesarean was done and mom and baby were fine. That is great for that case.

It is not possible in all cases. They are very few and sad.

How many abortions have you performed? how many years have you been in medical school? what are your credentials for that emotional statement?

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:42 AM
a reply to: reldra

In my country they use it as a method of birth control.
There is definitely a pro-abortion crowd.

Pro-life - let the fetus live
Pro-choice - let me choose whether she/he lives.

If the choice is in the mothers hands and she chooses to terminate because 'getting pregnant was a mistake', then yes, she is 'pro-abortion'.

I really think you're not taking the nice majority of idiots into account who just shrug there shoulders and let the doctors kill another one. I know many people who have had many abortions and just don't care, because they were young and stupid and will always remain stupid.

Ignorance is bliss, especially in the case of abortion.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:45 AM
a reply to: Pardon?

So once again a minority of extremists are the voice of everyone 'pro-life'.

Well yes, of course! The Minority decides the norm!

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:44 PM

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Pardon?

So once again a minority of extremists are the voice of everyone 'pro-life'.

Well yes, of course! The Minority decides the norm!

20% of clinics experiencing "some form of extreme activity" is pretty substantial.
This "minority" must be very busy.

And when you have a prominent anti-abortion group like the Centre for Medical Progress faking videos to essentially anger people this "minority" is only going to grow.

And when you have an idiot like Trump threatening to ban abortions this "minority" will grow.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:59 PM
a reply to: Pardon?

Listen, I know this is a very sensitive topic, but it's human lives we're discussing.
I feel a lot of people have the perspective that it's in some kind of moral grey area and doesn't fall within the realm of murder.

It's a very hard topic indeed, for every novel human-helping implementation there is someone wanting to abuse it.
This can be a very handy tool if the mothers life is in the type of danger that a c-section won't solve or any kind of premature birth doing ones best to preserve the life of the child and the mother.

I just don't understand when babies lives became so expendable to us? I understand that there will be very, very unique circumstances in which the baby really has to be sacrificed for the mothers life or vice-versa.
But is it happening so often that now somehow it's taking over the pro-choice argument by saying 'If my life is in danger I want the option to abort".

I think regulating abortion requires much better thought than what has gone into it so far, since a lot of people abuse it and don't always put much thought into their actions.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 03:35 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

ya know, I just went through both the posts in this thread, and the other one, and I can't can find one where I say that I even bring up the women's life without mentioning their health...
so where is the one that says that the most of the third trimester abortions are to save the women's life?

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, if there's rare medical situations where it isn't adviseable to induce labor, and I know for a fact that there are medical conditions that would eliminate the possibility of a this DOCTOR is saying....
just how do you get a baby out of the mother's womb without risking her health or life? an abortion at this late stage is really quite dangerous. considering the cost of an abortion at this late stage ($15,000), along with the fact that there is only four clinics in the entire country so some of these women have traveled across country to obtain them, along with danger associated with the procedure....
I would imagine that in these rare situations that the doctor is talking about the risks associated with c-section or inducing labor would kind of exceed that of the procedure itself.

as far as your dublin declaration...
I imagine that Savita Halappanavar's family would strongly disagree with these health professionals..

okay, let's go with the idea that most of these late term abortions is because if serious birth defects....

“We expect your baby to have moderate to severe mental retardation; she’s going to have moderate to severe physical disability; she is probably never going to walk or talk; she will possibly never be able to lift her head; she is going to have seizures all of the time.” At first, I was thinking, “This doesn’t make sense, she’s always moving,” and then he mentioned seizures, and I understood.

previously in the story she says this:

That whole pregnancy was hard for me. I was sick for much longer than most people are. I had sleep apnea. When I was pregnant with my first daughter, she would kick responsively, and then she would take naps. It seemed logical. This baby never stopped moving, but she never did anything responsive, either. The movements were so random. I remember telling a friend, “This baby is already different than my first.” I don’t know if it was that, or my history of miscarriages, or having that seed planted that something might be wrong, but I was uneasy.

gee one could wonder if this little baby was suffering for awhile in the womb having seizure and seizure.

when you speak of down syndrome, hey, I've know a few people with that in my lifetime. they could at least function, some even could hold down semi-meaningful jobs. but there are other defects that are far more severe.

And the war mongers of this country over the past 60 or so years have created some of the worst of them!! from the birth defects cause by the early nuclear tests in the marshal islands to the birth defects cause by agent orange in vietnam and korea, to those being seen in iraq and yugoslavia from our radioactive weapons, weather it be nuclear pollution, or chemicals such as agent orange.... we seem to have created an assualt on the unborn that will last from generaton to generation both in those countries that we fought in and the offspring of the servicemen that we sent to be exposed. jelly fish babies, cyclops, and other monsters, created by the good ole USA.

I wonder if any monsters are hiding in our DNA, or do we just destroy the DNA of those in other countries. One thing is sure, it would be interesting to find out just what deformities and birth defects are being hidden by the abortionists..

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 03:36 PM

originally posted by: Pardon?

Please don't call yourselves pro-life, you're anything but.

Excuse me?... So that's your stupid argument?... Those people who have murdered abortioninsts were wrong, but those people do not define or encompass the pro-life movement...

Your "pro-choice" movement is in fact "pro-death of the most innocent"... Your own progressive researchers, and progressive philosophers, and doctors have already laid the groundwork to extend abortion to "after birth abortion" as in making it legal to murder newborn babies even if they are perfectly healthy, and none of you have even said that this line of thinking is wrong... So don't call yourselves "pro-choice"... Call yourselves "pro-abortion and pro-death of innocents".

Yes, unfortunately there are some people in the pro-life movement who have gone to the extreme and committed murders. Those people were/are wrong. But those are a small minority. However, the "pro-choice movement' is in fact in favor of the choice to kill every time. Your movement dehumanizes the life of a human fetus even on the due date, and as already pointed out your "progressive leaders" have already laid out the groundwork to extend abortion for "after birth"...

Within the pro-life movement there is a SMALL minority who take it to the extreme and commit murders.

Within the pro-choice movement, you ALL are in favor of dehumanizing the HUMAN fetus and see the killing, and dismemberment of human fetuses as normal, even on the third trimester when they can feel pain, and react to what happens to the mother emotionally. You all apparently are ready to accept "after birth abortions as well". So who is pro death huh?... You claim that the small minority within the pro-life movement who commit murders makes everyone in the pro-life movement as murderers which is an obvious lie... but it is actually the entire pro-choice movement that is pro-death, because the choice you are all in favor of is "death of the most innocent".

edit on 24-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 04:38 PM

originally posted by: jellyrev
It's a horrifying and disgusting act yet I don't much care either way.
The natural rights in me tells me its wrong, that those persons are murdered.
The utilitarian in me tells me that most women who have abortions do not have long term thinking patterns, cannot judge risk, are of lower IQ, and my taxes will have to pay for them so it is a good thing those women do not have offspring.
The authoritarian in me simply says to tie tubes/snip people when they have multiple children out of wedlock and then we don't have to deal with this issue as much.

I've had 3 children out of wedlock. Would you be so bold as to make statements like that to an actual person? BTW all 3 pregnancies were planned because my fertile window is closing and I can't seem to find a man that's worth a crap. Most women who have abortions are low income, but their IQ and judgement abilities are just fine. A lot of women who get abortions are in serious relationships or even marriages, their husbands or SO helps make the decision with them. A lot more women end up getting an abortion after some POS guy knocks them up and then splits.

When 100% of back child support owed is paid up....THEN y'all can bitch about abortions and your tax dollars supporting women who have been ditched by dudes.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 04:56 PM

originally posted by: violet
I have to say I'm ignorant and really had no idea abortions were being performed in the third trimester, being that the baby can survive outside the womb around this stage ( depending on certain factors of course ).

I thought when it was a medical emergency to save the child or mother, a c section was performed. An expectant mother ( emphasis on expecting ) upon discovery there is something gravely wrong and the baby needs to come out, would surely beg to hsve a c section and try to save the child and herself. With today's advances in saving babies born prematurely, these babies hsve a good chance at survival. Why would she want to carry a dead baby around in her for days? Or like he said put herself at risk anyways?

Or if it's close to the time of birth, they just induce labour?

So this is like some surprise news that she's finding out there's something wrong, after she's been planning for this child's birth?

I'm not against abortions in the early stages but this just seems so unethical, I'm shocked it's taking place

I suppose I need to see an example of one where it indeed had to be done. This guy says it takes days to do

Don't drink the kool aide. NOBODY gets 3rd trimester abortions for sh*ts and giggles. By 20 weeks (5 months) you're already showing, you've already been suffering through all they crappy symptoms. I've had 3 kids, trust me, pregnancy sucks. The ONLY reason I could think of a woman getting an elective abortion after 20 weeks would be if 1. she didn't know she was pregnant until that point or 2. she just scraped up enough money to get one

Now, let's all put on our rational thinking caps, shall we? Let's say I'm excited about being pregnant and I go to get an ultrasound to find out the gender so I can start loading up on pink or blue baby swag. It's at 20 weeks that they can just start to tell with accuracy. They go to check it out and find something wrong. Suddenly there's a dark cloud over this pregnancy. They send me to a high risk OBGYN who orders another ultrasound and they confirm. The fetus is developing without lungs. It will never survive after birth. I go to get a second opinion- at this point I'm at 23 weeks. They say the same thing. So at that point it's my choice if I want to continue to the end, have a baby which dies immediately, then have a funeral for it. OR I could have a third trimester abortion and get it out so my body can return to normal and I can try again. Let me remind you that the last couple of months are the worst, you get huge and uncomfortable. You bloat up with a ton of extra fluid etc. Then there's labor. It's a long, painful beatdown of a process. Or C section which is major abdominal surgery.

What's the correct answer here? It's up to the individual.

Personally I would abort. Some people would prefer to take it to the end and have a funeral. It's all about personal choice.

NO ONE is having 3rd trimester abortions because they got all the way to that point and then went 'welp never mind'. And no doctor would perform an abortion on a healthy fetus that late either. This whole thread is just pro-'life' drivel.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:06 PM

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
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.

A grant allowed Colorado to provide free IUD's (really reliable birth control). The result? Babies born to teen mothers dropped by 40% and abortions dropped by 35%. Medicaid saved roughly $80 million. So when the grant is up and the state of Colorado has the chance to pick up the program, what do they do? Republican lawmakers vote it down!

So there ya go OP. I'm guessing you consider yourself a Republican. You need to write your representatives and demand that they give out free IUD's. I mean, if you really want to decrease abortions.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:23 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

Whassup Dawnstar! You and I tag teaming another abortion thread, I see. Same old. Same old.

I'll just leave these right here for ya!

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:44 PM
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

is that the little one you were carrying? she is so cute, or he....

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:24 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

She's a she. Yup that's her. Scout.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:40 PM
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

you two are doing all okay, as well as your other kids of course? she is really cute, and bright eyes and bushy tailed...

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 08:18 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


I guess this Doctor has never heard of HELLP Syndrome.

This # is a killer of pregnant women period end of story.

HELLP syndrome is a life-threatening obstetric complication usually considered to be a variant or complication of pre-eclampsia.[1] Both conditions usually occur during the later stages of pregnancy, or sometimes after childbirth. "HELLP" is an abbreviation of the three main features of the syndrome:[2] Hemolysis Elevated Liver enzymes Low Platelet count

The only effective treatment is prompt delivery of the baby. Several medications have been investigated for the treatment of HELLP syndrome, but evidence is conflicting as to whether magnesium sulfate decreases the risk of seizures and progress to eclampsia. The disseminated intravascular coagulation is treated with fresh frozen plasma to replenish the coagulation proteins, and the anemia may require blood transfusion. In mild cases, corticosteroids and antihypertensives (labetalol, hydralazine, nifedipine) may be sufficient. Intravenous fluids are generally required. Hepatic hemorrhage can be treated with embolization, as well, if life-threatening bleeding ensues. The University of Mississippi standard protocol for HELLP includes corticosteroids.[14] However, a 2009 review found "no conclusive evidence" supporting corticosteroid therapy,[1] and a 2010 systematic review by the Cochrane Collaboration also found "no clear evidence of any effect of corticosteroids on substantive clinical outcomes" either for the mothers or for the newborns,[15]


That's right the ONLY TREATMENT (until some hopeful fda trials finish up) is getting the baby out. If the child is not yet viable, they die.

I was pro-life and still am deep down, but the only option for me and wife IN THE STATE OF TEXAS NO LESS AT A BAYLOR CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL was a hysterotomy abortion. She was so out of it they made me make the decision. Have you ever had to make that choice? I have. Save my Wife or possibly let my wife wait and become a vegetable or die for our son to be viable and still possibly lose him. They gave her 70% alone, they gave her and him less than 20%. I made them break it down for me.

No offense but you and this "doctor" know ZERO.

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:49 PM
I agree with you and wanted to add this,,,.,,god forbid a woman should have an abortion...but if she has the child and gets government help she is the scourge of the earth, right

originally posted by: cosmickat
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, 24 2016 @ 10:11 PM
Point of order: As a pro-life advocate and newborn adoptee in 1972, even I will admit that the majority of abortions in the USA happen at 20 weeks or less and are legal as per the Roe vs. Wade ruling.

That said, the majority reasons for those abortions are NOT women's health.

Just because something is legal, does not make it right. Slavery was legal, at one time. So was segregation. So were a lot of things we now admit were ethically and morally wrong.

I will acknowledge there is a time and a place for a medically necessary abortion. Things happen. Biology is a wacky bell curve and sh#t happens.

But when majority reasons are "I can't afford the child" or "I have enough kids already" or "I'm not ready" then there is something broken in people's minds and hearts. That is sick. It's hard to find the right words to describe how selfish, irresponsible and ignorant those attitudes are.
edit on 24-10-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 10:29 PM
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'll put this story here

2nd pregnancy...they wanted the child...they saw on the news that the late term abortion dr was killed..she couldn't imagine why anyone would have a late term abortion....then she found out the child she was carring had severe brain abnormalities that don't show up until later......the child would have constant untreatable seizures or be a vegetable..

they went through hell...had to go to another state to terminate,,,,read the story at the link

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 01:19 AM
a reply to: thesungod

Prompt delivery of the baby is not abortion... Sorry, but the 100th times BS is your claim it is. Delivery of the baby on the later stages of pregnancy means exactly what it says... The baby has to be delivered. Premature babies can and do survive in case you didn't know... So again, it doesn't say that abortion is necessary...

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in