And Then There Were None: Shutting Down the Abortion Industry Person by Person
By: Jerry Newcombe
This is good news! The national nightmare that is the killing of our innocent children in abortuaries is finally beginning to recede. Pointing out Planned Parenthood for the barbarians that they are and convincing people one by one to leave the baby killing industry is good as is the states using regulations to bring these monsters under closer control and setting high health safety standards. The federal rules preventing planned non parenthood from hiding their baby parts selling and abortions behind the facade of other women’s health services better provided elsewhere. A good start. Only a few days until the next pro life baby memorial rally in Washington DC.
Surge Summary: Person by person, former abortion clinic manager Abby Johnson’s pro-life ministry is now emptying the abortion industry of its workers and helping women find a new livlihood and new life outside of that bloody business in the process.
In 2008, Abby Johnson, the manager of the Bryan, Texas (100 miles from Houston) Planned Parenthood, became that organization’s Employee of the Year.
By 2009, she quit for conscience’ sake. Why?
That year, for the first time, she saw an ultrasound of an abortion of a 13-week old unborn child in her own clinic. This was not a blob of tissue, a clump of cells, a non-living being. This was a baby that was fighting for his life.
Although Abby Johnson was a good salesman of abortions and thought that she was helping women through her work, seeing that baby fighting for his life caused the scales to fall from her eyes.
Abby says that after she saw that ultrasound, “I knew that I had been part of a lie. I had been a part of a corrupt system, a corrupt organization, that really preyed upon women in their vulnerable states, and I knew that I needed to leave.”
She has now written a book (with Cindy Lambert) called Unplanned , and PureFlix (“God’s Not Dead”) has now turned that book into an excellent movie.
Abby Johnson has also started an outreach, And Then There Were None (ATTWN), to help abortion workers leave the field. I have interviewed Abby before and have previously written about her story. But here is an update about ATTWN, since I interviewed for Christian television two of her assistants at ATTWN recently.
One of them is Meagan Weber, who told me, “[Abby] wrote her book hoping that a worker would pick it up as a skeptic and see the truth, and see themselves through her words, and within three months of her book’s release in 2011, she had 17 abortion workers contact her for help.”
In effect, Abby and those 17 workers became the beginning of her work to help transition abortion clinic workers out of the field. Her reasoning is simple. She says in her ATTWN website, abortionworker.com , “We always say that nobody grows up wanting to work in the abortion industry. Nobody. Our vision statement for ‘And then there were none’ is ‘No abortion clinic workers, no abortion clinics, no abortions’—it starts with the workers. We see ourselves as being part of a pro-love movement. That we want to love these workers out of the clinics. We want to love them to a path of healing, and we want to love them back into a relationship with Jesus Christ.”
As an abortion worker, Abby Johnson had thought that what she was doing at Planned Parenthood was helping women. But she learned the hard way that the real bottom line of Planned Parenthood was its bottom line.
Weber, who serves as Abby Johnson’s Assistant, told me, “They asked her to increase the number of abortions at her facility by half, and so she said, ‘Don’t we tell the media that we want to reduce the number of abortions to make them safe, legal, and rare?’ And her supervisor laughed and said, ‘Well, Abbey, how do you think we make our money?’ And she really was blindsided by that.”
Weber also says, “Leaving your job in the abortion industry is not like leaving your job in a fast food outlet. It has the same high turnover rate, but you don’t just leave your job, you leave your friends, you leave your ideology…you go from one day championing women’s rights and abortion rights to the next day having to humble yourself and say, ‘I was wrong. I was part of a very evil system,’ and they have to come to terms with that. So there is a lot of emotional trauma, and there is abandonment.”
I also have spoken with Laura Ricketts of ATTWN for Christian television. She observed, “As we walk through the process of healing them, as we meet their practical needs with financial assistance, with resume writing, with jobs search help, as we help them pay their bills, get back on their feet, once their practical needs are met, they are ready to meet their emotion and spiritual needs.”
So far the organization has been able to help hundreds of clinic workers get out of the abortion field. Meagan states, “And so here we are seven years later, and we’ve helped 550 workers and 7 full-time doctors.”
The movie alone helped cause about a hundred abortion clinic workers to respond…to consider coming out. Ricketts told me, “I think one of the most exciting things about the movie is the impact it had across the country and now across the world. We saw hearts changed, abortion clinic workers leaving their jobs.”
Abby Johnson says, “My story is really an exposé. It’s pulling back the curtain into an industry that has been normalized. Abortion has been so incredibly normalized in our society, and it’s anything but normal.”
The views here are those of the author and not necessarily Daily Surge.
Abby and those 17 workers became the beginning of her work to help transition abortion clinic workers out of the field. Her reasoning is simple. She says in her ATTWN website, abortionworker.com , “We always say that nobody grows up wanting to work in the abortion industry. Nobody. Our vision statement for ‘And then there were none’ is ‘No abortion clinic workers, no abortion clinics, no abortions’—it starts with the workers. We see ourselves as being part of a pro-love movement. That we want to love these workers out of the clinics. We want to love them to a path of healing, and we want to love them back into a relationship with Jesus Christ.”
As an abortion worker, Abby Johnson had thought that what she was doing at Planned Parenthood was helping women. But she learned the hard way that the real bottom line of Planned Parenthood was its bottom line.
Weber, who serves as Abby Johnson’s Assistant, told me, “They asked her to increase the number of abortions at her facility by half, and so she said, ‘Don’t we tell the media that we want to reduce the number of abortions to make them safe, legal, and rare?’ And her supervisor laughed and said, ‘Well, Abbey, how do you think we make our money?’ And she really was blindsided by that.”
Weber also says, “Leaving your job in the abortion industry is not like leaving your job in a fast food outlet. It has the same high turnover rate, but you don’t just leave your job, you leave your friends, you leave your ideology…you go from one day championing women’s rights and abortion rights to the next day having to humble yourself and say, ‘I was wrong. I was part of a very evil system,’ and they have to come to terms with that. So there is a lot of emotional trauma, and there is abandonment.”
I also have spoken with Laura Ricketts of ATTWN for Christian television. She observed, “As we walk through the process of healing them, as we meet their practical needs with financial assistance, with resume writing, with jobs search help, as we help them pay their bills, get back on their feet, once their practical needs are met, they are ready to meet their emotion and spiritual needs.”
So far the organization has been able to help hundreds of clinic workers get out of the abortion field.
Why is a woman having an abortion anybody else's business?
Because as a result a baby boy or girl who has no choice in the matter ceases to exist. But this article wasn’t about that.
OK, that's off topic. Is this about less trained workers doing abortions safely?
No. It’s about getting to where there are no abortion workers at all to do one anywhere except a hospital to save the life of the mother.
Heartland my friend, women and young girls will have abortions regardless. It is important to give them safe medical care.
Even if you make abortion illegal and unsafe you will not stop it. Do you want young girls and woman to die or suffer injury from trying to solve their problem themselves?
When I was in high school (long time ago) some unlucky girls almost died trying to give themselves abortions and some were successful and did it without injury
We have a lot of hospitals to take care of people’s health needs.
I think I broke Firefox when I voted that up.
100% agreed.
Well said Sunshine!
It's not a baby until it's born. And emotional (and factually incorrect) platitudes like that is not sufficient reason to deny a woman her rights!
Keep dreaming. As long as women have the legal right and desire for an abortion, there will be providers.
Why use up hospital space, time, and resources (which can be utilized for more serious health issues/cases) when an outpatient clinic can handle something as simple as an abortion? That's just an inefficient use of resources.
Hooray Abby Johnson. America must become the nation where all women, under penalty of law, must bear children regardless of financial, personal or emotional circumstance.
Besides, we all know the conservatives will raise the taxes and increase the budgets for healthcare, education and future opportunity. Right?
Abbey Johnson is a great American doing God’s work here. She’s not taking to the streets to protest but going after to change the minds of women and men actually performing the abortion ritual.
Are there candles? Incense? Chants? Hymns? I'm interested, what makes a medical procedure a "ritual"?
[deleted]
You can say what ya want Heartland; stop playing the martyr, it’s disgusting.
No I can’t. I never claimed martyrdom [deleted.]
That is total poppycock. As long as you don't insult a member and follow the CoC. your good to go.
[deleted]
You have every right to say what you want. What you dislike when you speak your mind are the many counter arguments showing you how the law is not on your side. We do not live in a theocracy, so no matter how much you believe you should have the right to another persons body, the law does not recognize your fantasy imagined theocratic rights.
By your continued use of this blatant lie (there is no such thing as the pro-abortion side) you expose yourself as not wanting to have a reasonable debate about women's health care but are simply here to accuse and condemn. No one is surprised with your seeds or your comments. What would surprise people is if you expressed anything actually worthwhile that wasn't just pointing and wagging fingers.
What have you been blocked from sharing here? What "pro-life rhetoric" are you not allowed to share? It seems as if you share your seeds daily but angry when the many legal and logical holes are poked it in. What you really seem to be upset at is that your non-stop religious conservative rhetoric isn't being received as well as you wish. It's not being hailed as the absolute truth you imagine it to be and instead is rightly challenged. The fact is, so far I've not heard a single decent argument from the anti-abortion side as for why women should have their rights stripped. I've occasionally heard arguments about "viability" or the 22-24 weeks limitations are too late which is a reasonable debate to have. But the anti-abortion crowd don't want any compromise, they demand a ban as early as conception and give no valid reasoning other their belief that a new "soul" is created as conception which of course they cannot prove.
If that's what you have to tell yourself to soften the constant rejection of your spurious opinions, then you go right ahead. Just like no one is stopping you from speaking your mind if it's on topic and not personal in nature, no one is stopping you from lying to yourself about why few embrace your circular logic and pointless rhetoric.
Abortion ritual? Oh brother.
Since when is a medical procedure considered a "ritual?" Does the AMA know about this?
You can stop claiming martyrdom whenever your want...
Well it was done prior to legal abortions.
Yes, and women died.
Unwanted pregnancy is a major cause of poverty and other problems
Adoption will greatly alleviate those problems.
What makes you think that women want to be incubators for other people?
The problem will just go away if only the baby is exterminated quickly. There have been more and more Juno’s out there looking to give their baby up for adoption and move on in their lives.
There are no stats on that.
And for the record, I made both my daughters watch Juno. They had differing opinions and I was fine with both. That's called "Choice".
I just want the preform baby to have the option to choose life for him or herself. Is that too much to ask for?
But it's not a baby until about 16 weeks later, so yes it is.
There's no such thing as a preform baby. Are you referring to a fetus ?
I don't think a fetus is capable of making complex, existential decisions.
It’s a typo. Supposed to be pre born but without the space the device spell checked it to preform.
It’s a human person from the moment of conception so we will have to agree to disagree.
There is no child before that. There is nothing called a performed baby. There is a child or there isn't.
And that is fine. Those are your beliefs and I'm good with them. What I am not good with is having you force them on other people.
What is a pre-form baby?
That is not what your bible says, Remembering the exact passage nmbers were stated in previous discussions
Life begins with the first breath and ends with the last breath?
Yes, it is. A fetus isn't a human being. Even your bible tells you that.
Making up terms like "preborn baby" doesn't help your argument, btw.
I found the above chart, it did not copy as clear as I would like but the verse numbers are there.
No, it won't!
There's no baby to exterminate. But abortions done as early as possible is best, as it is much easier, cheaper, and safer.
Good for them. That's their choice. That doesn't mean there's enough people willing to adopt.
Yes, it is! Because it's completely idiotic. How can an embryo/fetus "choose" anything? By that reasoning, they are considered minors, so parental rights are paramount, including the right to an abortion. There is no way to justify legally eliminating abortion or providing "choice" to a "baby" without infringing or removing a woman's already established right! Or do you think an embryo that miscarries "chose" to die?
And you are free to be wrong, factually, legally, and scientifically!
Assuming this account to be true, shouldn't we have a problem with this? I hear all the time that nobody is "pro-abortion" but this kind of makes it sound like Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion because it's profitable. Anybody want to condemn or defend this?
So you take what she is saying as gospel?
Yes !
You shouldn't, she's lying, like your 'president'
I said, "Assuming this account to be true" so that we could talk about it without getting into a pointless slap fight about whether or not it is true. The point is to talk about the content.
It's not true. The content is bogus.
Then there is no reason for you to respond. Have a nice day.
Hint, she is lying about being told to increase the amount of abortions by half, LYING.
prove it!
Can you name a medical profession that isn't designed to at least cover the expenses or be less than profitable?
Would you consider it ethical for a doctor to "sell" someone on an expensive, risky, invasive procedure (not to mention possibly morally troubling) when a simple lifestyle change would solve their problem? Why push a root canal or heart surgery when brushing and flossing or diet exercise are viable alternatives, particularly when the doctor's primary motivation is profit?
Sorry, no sale, Tacos.
They are addressing the issue AFTER the fact; talk of prevention is most often unnecessary after one procedure,
which is not "expensive or risky" when performed by trained professionals.
A child, on the other hand, is forever.
The patient has to live with her choice.
If the medical team has issues, they quit, like the subject of the article did.
Later
just picked up 2 dozen truck tacos
Dinner time!
And therein lies the problem. Her story may not be true. There are many inconsistencies told by her. You can read about them here:
Personally, I don't think anyone should be talked in or out of an abortion and that was not my experience with the local PP that I took my friends to. Instead, they were both told to go home and think about it and although their choices were very different, I think it goes to show that choice is the way to go. I am still friends with these women and it worked out well for both of them.
The whole piece sounds like it's written by a moronic 13 year old. No one at Planned Parenthood forces abortions/sells abortions to anyone.
A woman is given her options and the choice is left to her.
Sounds like Johnson and Weber are lying.
[deleted]
Prove it.
I took 2 of my friends to planned parenthood who were pregnant when I was in college. No one was talked into an abortion. They were asked what they wanted to do. One kept the pregnancy, the other did not, and it wasn't done at PP.
Over 95% of women who have an abortion do not regret it, study finds
The majority of women who have had abortion do not regret the decision to undergo the procedure, a new study has revealed.
The research, published in Social Science & Medicine , found that five years after having an abortion, over 95% of the women said it was the right decision for them.
Researchers surveyed 667 women across 21 states in the US who had abortions at the start of the five year study, analysing their emotions surrounding their decision to get an abortion.
The women were surveyed a week after they sought care and every six months thereafter, for a total of 11 times.
Participants were asked if they had any emotions of sadness, guilt, relief, regret, anger or happiness over their decision.
Results revealed 95% of women indicated that an abortion was the right decision for them over the course of the study.
Relief was the most common emotion throughout the five years of the study.
READ MORE: Women should be approved for abortions over Skype to ‘prevent distress’, say doctors
Though the majority of women do not report regretting their decision, many did struggle to decide whether to have the procedure in the first place.
Just over a quarter (27%) said the decision to terminate their pregnancy was very difficult, while the same figure (27%) described it being somewhat difficult (27%).
The remainder (46%) said it was not difficult to make the choice.
Researchers found no evidence that women began to regret their decisions as years passed. In fact the women reported that both their positive and negative feelings about the abortion diminished over time.
At five years, the overwhelming majority (84%) had either positive feelings, or none at all.
Commenting on the findings in an accompanying commentary on the study in Social Science & Medicine , Julia Steinberg, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of family science at the University of Maryland said: “This research goes further than previous studies, in that it follows women for longer, and was conducted on a larger sample from many different clinics throughout the US.
“It shows that women remain certain in their decision to get an abortion over time. These results clearly disprove claims that regret is likely after abortion.”
The findings also revealed that around 70% of the study participants reported feeling concerned they would be stigmatised by their communities if people knew they had sought an abortion, with 29% reporting low levels and 31% reporting high levels of community stigma.
The results also revealed that those who struggled with their decisions or felt stigmatised were more likely to experience sadness, guilt and anger shortly after obtaining the abortion.
Though these feelings did diminish over time.
READ MORE: What you need to know about having an abortion
The authors also note that, though abortion counselling is not entirely necessary according to the study’s findings, if offered, there should be a focus on helping to cope with the stigma surrounding having an abortion.
“Even if they had difficulty making the decision initially, or if they felt their community would not approve, our research shows that the overwhelming majority of women who obtain abortions continue to believe it was the right decision," said Corinne Rocca, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences , and first author of the study.
“This debunks the idea that most women suffer emotionally from having an abortion.”
READ MORE: Morning after pill now available for same-day home delivery
The findings follow a study released last year by Marie Stopes International, which found that only one in three women would tell their family if they were considering an abortion due to fears of stigma and repercussions.
A further study, published in the academic journal PLOS One in 2015, surveying 667 women over a three-year period and had similar results to the latest research in that 95% of women said that having an abortion was right for them.
[deleted.]
I totally agree. Nice to know how HA knows the minds of EVERYONE.
Except they aren't actually human beings at the point when the abortions occur.
But then, Trump idolaters aren't big on facts. Or morals.
I have seen women brag about it. To be honest though, I think it's more of a "in your face" kind of thing rather than cold blooded, heartless disregard for potential human life. Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.
Why would they brag about it?
I have seen some men brag about rape, but I don't assume a whole faction of our society wears rape as a bade of pride and brag about it... it is assumption on HA's part.
You are wrong.
Not being traumatized by an abortion is a far cry from bragging about it, but then, [deleted] so what do you expect from his comments.
It's like HA said, they feel empowered over men or the system or whatever their hang up is. It is their reaction to criticism. Everybody has their own way of dealing with things, just might seem a little cold to some people.
Pro life comments are always inflammatory to the pro abortion crowd. I stand by and double down on what I said and meant every word of it.
Well said. Most in the pro life movement are women so this is not a “women’s” issue. It’s a human rights issue for the unborn
it’s all true and no apologies. I meant and stand by and double down on every word of it.
It is most definitely a womans issue
Which ones? The pro abortion ones or the pro life ones?
Wrong. Pro-life comments are not inflammatory unless they use terms like pro-abortion, which is not a term, but a misrepresentation. The term is PRO CHOICE.
And if you double down on everything you just said then you are perpetuating a lie.
No, it's a human rights issue to the women who are actually alive, and not a lump of cells.
Interesting how worried you are with the labeling. It's like you want to support abortion, just not directly. Somehow that didn't work for the South when they were pro-state's rights instead of pro-slavery.
Well, in my world, words matter, so yes how you "label" someone matters. So I will explain this to you.
Being "Pro-choice" means people who are anti abortion are not forced to get one, and those who want one to be able to get one, the operative word being choice.
Being Pro-abortion implies that you want everyone to be forced into an abortion. Pro-Choice people don't want that.
Don't muddy the waters with a strawman.
There is not a bit of difference morally between the slave holders of those days and the abortionists of today. Equally guilty in the eyes of the creator
A 3 month old unborn fetus does not have a fully functioning neurological system. It does not think and has only rudimental reflexes. It's not even close to living outside of the mother's body. So what it looks like doesn't really matter. What matters is if it actually functions, and it doesn't. The moment it crosses over into functioning, then I think that choice goes out the window, and that is around 16 weeks. But for the reason that I do believe in giving a baby a chance, I think most abortions should only be done in the first trimester, which is 12 weeks.
That's hilarious. Your god ordered its followers to rape and enslave people, and it causes more abortions than all the doctors put together.
Wrong. The bible spells out how to have slaves, so apparently it is fine in the eyes of the creator.
On the other hand, it specifically says that there is no soul in the body until the first breath.
This is all in the bible. No where does it address abortion.
MUVA,
What it looks like and what it is are two different things. You may have brown eyes but your DNA might say you have both blue and brown eyes. Neither is a falsehood.
Become something means that it is not there yet. So becoming human is like saying dysplasia is almost cancer, but it isn't. The outcome has yet to be developed.
If I showed you pictures of a human, dog, cat, and pig embryo, I doubt you'd be able to determine which is which with any consistency.
Technically, yes. Although, at that stage, it is a fetus.
Congratulations to her.
There's less if women choose to not have abortions. As long as they have that choice though.
True, all mammals follow the same development for the first 9 weeks
first gill slits all of which disappear except one which develops into the jaw bone and ears
then the belly bump some people associate with a yolk sac;
as that retreats a long tail develops then is reabsorbed the last few spinal bits forming the coccyx,
all of which are gone by the end of the 2nd month when the fur occurs.
The fur can be fine or course and should only last until the 7th or 8th month but
preemies are often still furry and the hair usually fall out quickly after birth.
By the 3rd month the DNA sends us toward our final product design
even though some webbing is still evident on ultrasounds on the hands especially
and not uncommon at birth.
Fascinating subject.
And yet, some people think the beginning of the production is the same as the end. Go figure.
Not to mention The willful inflammatory language using clump of cells as a put down of what we know on the pro life side to be a real human life. This inflammatory comment thing is a two way street, and I find that term to be offensive and a deliberate provocation.
All life is equal.
How is that inflammatory when it is true? I guess you're not familiar with embryology.
He is not talking about scientific fact, he is talking about political correctness. What you might call a lump of cells would be considered a lost life to someone who just had a miscarriage or a victim of domestic violence. You pro abortionists might want to rethink your heartless verbiage and remember it's not just "right wing bigots" you are offending.
We're not pro-abortion. We are pro-choice.
What's the difference? Pro-abortion doesn't imply that you don't have a choice. It just means you support abortion. What other choice are we talking about?
Heartless verbiage - also inflammatory.
SAVE A TREE !
SAVE THAT YELLOW FLOWER !
SAVE THAT BIRD !
SAVE THAT LIZARD !
SAVE THAT FISH !
SAVE THAT WORM !
SAVE THAT SNAIL !
SAVE THAT WHALE !
SAVE THAT POLAR BEAR !
Even …..…….. SAVE THE PLANET (Like Humans can save the planet , they can't even save THEMSELVES ) !
They're all more IMPORTANT !
You also call yourselves "progressives". It's called "Newspeak."
Newspeak Comes From 1984
The term "newspeak" was coined by George Orwell in his 1949 anti-utopian novel 1984 . In Orwell's fictional totalitarian state, Newspeak was a language favored by the minions of Big Brother and, in Orwell's words, "designed to diminish the range of thought." Newspeak was characterized by the elimination or alteration of certain words, the substitution of one word for another, the interchangeability of parts of speech, and the creation of words for political purposes. The word has caught on in general use to refer to confusing or deceptive bureaucratic jargon.
Why? It's a fact. You support women's right to have an abortion. Why not just embrace it? Who cares if you like sucking lumps of cells out of women's wombs?
The term pro-abortion is only used to cause a negative reaction. It does not & will never elicit a healthy discussion. Just as the term anti-woman does. But I guess healthy discussions is not what is wanted on an ADULT forum.
You use the term only to inflame - how about you join a civil and healthy discussion without terms and phrases to elicit negative responses?
I believe a woman has the right to go to a doctor and get ANY health procedure she needs without you or anyone else getting into it. I will not apologize for that EVER.
It was the original term. "Pro-choice" was the Newspeak creation.
Speaking of "Healthy" !
Do most "Human Abortions" occur because of Physical Health issues ?
Big deal - there are a lot of terms that were "the original" that we have moved away. Or do you really think the derogatory terms used for Irish, Jews, Italians should still be used to foster healthy discussion?
We are not pro-abortion, we are PRO-CHOICE.
And of course, they won't call those who oppose killing babies pro-life.
And for the linguistically challenged, we call babies in the wombs, babies. A pregnant woman doesn't say "the fetus is kicking." Or "the ball of cells in my stomach is kicking."
Sounds like Womansplanin.......Ya, "we" change a lot of words, don't "we?"
Does it matter you? How does a medical decision (any medical decision) made by others affect you? Do you need to know if I had a tumor removed? Do you need to know if my husband had a vasectomy? Do you need to know all the details of my daughter's medical issues so you can weigh in on how to treat her? Do I have that same right to know ALL about you & your family's medical decisions?
The choice to make decisions about your own body and what kind of health care your chosen Physician can provide without government intervention.
The word "Pro-Life" is really a page right out of their book...One that turned out to be a perfect pitch!
We don't need your Orwellian nonsense bullshit mansplanations either.
So in other word you refuse to answer - got it. Do you commonly call Irish people "bog trotters", Italians - wops or dagos, Jews - Kikes? Do you use those terms in conversations? So why inflame when a healthy discussion can occur.
Why ….. Sure it does !
It's my money, and I want it BACK …… Now !
I hear that "Condoms" are "Free", all over this great country of ours !
This has nada to do with political correctness, because I am not PC, so don't use that as an excuse. I've had 2 miscarriages and I understood that although I lost pregnancy (by the way, the word means Pregnant means: having possibilities of development or consequence : involving important issues), I was disappointed, but I didn't think I lost a baby.
And you know that calling people pro-abortion is just being proactive. I have stated many times here that I am pro-choice, choice being the you can chose to keep the pregnancy or not. And I find it offensive, that you want to force your beliefs on people who don't believe in what you believe. Please don't lecture a mom, who had twins and was in hospital or bed ridden on medicine that stressed my heart for 3 months trying to keep my pregnancy. When you men have to do that, then you can lecture.
Sigh - not even worth discussing it anymore.
Total strawman argument.
Why on earth would I do that? Why would anyone do that?
So why inflame when a healthy discussion can occur.
I don't see how calling someone in favor of a woman having a right to abortion as "pro-abortion" is inflaming the conversation. You either believe in your convictions or you don't. Are you ashamed of saying a woman has the right to abort?
I thought you were looking for a "Healthy" discussion.
Should I go the "Sick" route instead !
"Do most "Human Abortions" occur because of Physical Health issues ?"
Maybe I should Throw in for clarity, and to further a " Healthy " Discussion:
OR
Is it MOST. ..…. for "Birth Control" ?
Oh, If he could see America today, he be wearing a sign saying "I WARNED YOU."
Most of them aren't pro-life. After a baby is born, they have zero interest in its health or quality of life.
Maybe the linguistically challenged call zygotes and embryos babies - but at that point they are not babies. Once they're 8 weeks or so, fetus is the proper term.
Why ?
'cause Plants and Animals are more important to "Life" ?
USE the "Pregnancy" protections your given by "Planned Parenthood", and Big Gov. (Condemns and other Birth Control items)!
They work more times than NOT !
USE THEM ....EVEN ABUSE THEM IF NECASSARY!
You'll actually ........... save a "Life" .... for a "Change" !
So your issue is only with the small percentage of abortions that occur after 'quickening'?
'Do you use those terms in conversations? So why inflame when a healthy discussion can occur.'
Some folks here only contributions are to inflame.
The righties are making it very difficult for women to get birth control and sex ed from Planned Parenthood.
So you're in favor of Big Gov taking over from all the backwards red states that teach abstinence only sex ed - if they even provide sex ed - to help reduce unwanted pregnancies? Awesome!
Right! Like gun control advocates who are upset a few schools get shot up! It's only a few schools!
Please explain
Nazis were right wing.
Haven't you and Vic really gone off off topic here? Way off topic
7/11's and WaWa's carry condom packs... for just a few bucks !
Stop "Standing for your MAN", and make your MAN, Stand for YOU !
Women's Rights …. until "Physical Emotions" take over" ?
What a concept....huh !
If you're REALLY for "Women's Rights", Stand up against the MAN that won't put a Condom on....and Just say NO !
As to "Sex Ed." .....if someone doesn't know the ins and outs of what causes pregnancy by NOW, and how to STOP IT.....our parenting and education system is worse than I thought was Possible !
It really is. When you have schools and parents teaching abstinence only, those poor kids don't stand a chance once their hormones kick in. Telling them "just say no" is a proven track for failure.
And this may not be a popular thing for me to say - but if someone goes on public assistance, for crying out loud, offer them Norplant and educate them! If you can't afford to support yourself, you're in no position to be bringing a baby into this world. Same thing for drug addicts - if you have to revive someone with Narcan, offer them Norplant. For now that just impacts women, but once male birth control is widely available, do the same thing for the guys.
The reason I say Norplant is because there is no thought required; you don't have to remember to take a pill or talk a guy into using a condom (of course, they should be using condoms TOO to prevent STDs, but we know a lot of time people simply refuse to use them, or are too drunk to give a crap, or whatever).
Because you are trying to make a false equivalency.
Masturbation never got anybody pregnant, does not make anybody go crazy, and what we're about is preventing HIV in our bright young people.
Joycelyn Elders
"The reason I say Norplant is because there is no thought required; you don't have to remember to take a pill or talk a guy into using a condom"
Isn't that just "Dumbing Down" folks..... even more ?
As far as what I have seen ....... That's NOT ..... a Good Thing !
Maybe "Stop" certain "Outs", and FORCE people to be "Responsible for their actions" instead ?
When you give folks many "Bogies"(Golf Term) in life, they'll take advantage of it ..... EVERY TIME !
What ?
Plants and "Instinctually Sex driven " Animals, are more important than a "Human " ?
And here I thought "Humans" were the TOP OF THE WORLDS CHAIN OF COMMAND !
My Mistake.
Oh, the irony!
Whose book is that exactly?
And as with so many other things, NOT as advertised...
I'm not interested in political correctness, only in actual fact! And yes, a clump of cells is a clump of cells. If actual facts offends you or anyone, then perhaps you make or engage in arguments based more on rational thinking instead of emotional appeals.
physician, heal thyself.
Introduction to Biology - Molecules and Cells
"A cell is a contained chamber with its own internal complexity, even its own chambers, but it is the smallest unit considered to be alive ."
Wierd huh !
Not weird at all. This is why we should arrest every man who doesn't impregnate a woman every day - all those living sperm cells he's murdering.
And we should also arrest every woman who gets her period ... all those living eggs we are murdering.
All those celibate religious fanatics - MURDERERS!!!
Funny how you take that approach with abortion and religion, but not say transgenderism. Where there is not one shred of scientific evidence that it exists as anything more than a mental condition.
What's your point? No one has argued that cells aren't alive.
If that's what you "Need" to happen.....try and go for it !
I hear/read, when those "Cells" actually get "Together", Things CHANGE, and they create Life as we see it, all over this planet !
No mechanical microscope needed.
Isn't life "GRAND" ?
Some women get emotional about pregnancy and refer to a fetus as a baby. That might be emotionally comforting. But it's still a fetus no matter what one wants to call it.
Nice attempt at an appeal to emotion. An epic fail. But still a nice attempt.
I didn't post anything about that sort !
I just gave you …..a FACT !
You like facts....right ?
Think about that FACT !
Thanks but the proof is in the pudding. If abortion was no big deal and people really just thought of them as a clump of cells, they would have no problem tagging themselves as pro abortion. They can't seem to stomach it though. They want to be pro choice to keep the emphases on the mother, and not the potential human life they are choosing to end. I think people have a harder time thinking of a fetus as a clump of cells than you think. Otherwise let's just label you guys pro-abortionists and I don't see what the problem is.
Sperm and eggs are potential lives. So, you're pro-baby-murder if you don't impregnate a woman every few days. All those potential lives you're killing!
I am pro choice. I would never tell another woman to get an abortion but every woman should have the choice to do so.
So we can call you anti-choice, not pro-life? Pro-choice has the meaning that a woman has the right to CHOOSE what she does with her body when she becomes pregnant. REGARDLESS of what Vic believes.
I own the fact that i believe a woman should be able to choose what is best for herself, not you, not Trump, not the woman down the street. HER CHOICE. If I were pro-abortion I would think all pregnancies should be terminated since the world has enough people on it & we are beginning to outpace the earth.
You have any issue being called anti-choice or anti-woman? Since you do not believe in a woman's right to choose what is best for her (by the way SHE IS ALIVE & therefore I am pro-life).
Are you trying to be obtuse? Ok, I'll simplify things: pro choice does not equal "pro abortion," which is a disingenuous term. No one is going around saying or demanding women have abortions. Pro choicers acknowledge and repect a woman's right to chose, including whether to continue a pregnancy or not. Some pro-lifers and anti choicers clearly do not share that respect.
Actually, it's not.
Yes if she CHOOSES to do so.
Why would you want anyone embrace a misrepresentation?
I'd much prefer they be able to use the medical method over the counter...
The issue with your POV is that you don't connect the dots.
If supporting a right means that you encourage it's use, it would follow that supporting the 2nd Amendment encourages the use of guns.
It's funny how 2nd Amendment supporters always bring up the 'slippery slope' scenario, any gun regulation will lead to all guns being taken away. But those same people seem incapable of applying that slippery slope scenario to abortion regulations...
Nicely done!
It is inflammatory to call human life a clump of cells when human life is so much more than that.
Exactly. Well said.
Not when another life is in the balance.
Sorry
Science offends you - who would have guessed!
What proof exactly? You've offered none. Justillogical appeals to emotion and pure conjecture, while still demonstrating a pround willful ignorance regarding pro choice.
So then gun rights activists should also call themselves prochoice, because they support everyone's choice to buy a gun. See how dumb that sounds?
What's really funny is your Strawman argument, which only shows how weak your position really is.
Maybe her life is, you have no idea.
Still irrelevant to the topic. But you go ahead and pretend it's not if it makes you feel better.
No it's not. It's not about choice, it's a right. They support the right to abort their children. No one cares what choice a woman makes, the only thing that matters is they have the right to actually do what they chose.
Except a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus is not yet a human life. So a clump of cells is an apt description. A blastocyst is literally a clump of cells. A zygote is just a single cell. Not even a clump yet.
A woman has the RIGHT to CHOOSE to have an abortion or not. If she CHOOSES to have an abortion, that is her RIGHT. So yes, it is a choice. And a right. I can't make it any simpler than that. A shame there are some who want to restrict or prohibit a womans rights and choices.
OK, so then do we have to make a law to make sure women have the right to CHOOSE to eat breakfast in the morning? Again, it's not about the right to choose, it's the right to have an abortion without facing legal consequences. I think it's dumb abortion is the only RIGHT that we have to clarify that people can choose. Every right is a choice for Christ sake. You don't have to do anything you have the right to do. It's ridiculous and you just can't admit it.
Vic,
That's a baby and that would be murder.
What are these:
Which is the human one?
'Again, it's not about the right to choose, it's the right to have an abortion without facing legal consequences.'
What legal consequences for a lawful medical procedure? It's not illegal to have an abortion despite all the attempts of the 'right' to make it so.
Oh.. So looks decide whether a human has the right to life.
Why in the world would how a baby looks be relevant in whether it's okay to kill it? Is that how life or death appearances should be made, on looks?
Is that supposed to be a cogent analogy?
Again, wrong. There were few if any 'legal consequences' for a woman having an abortion prior to Roe v. Wade.
I suggest that you review the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. You'll find more there.
So then it IS about choice. It's ridiculous that you just can't admit it.
No more than any other mammal embryo. We're just very smart animals Xx. Smart enough to know we live on a unique planet and too stupid not to make it uninhabitable for human life.
'Oh.. So looks decide whether a human has the right to life.
Why in the world would how a baby looks be relevant in whether it's okay to kill it? Is that how life or death appearances should be made, on looks?'
So you couldn't tell which one was the human embryo, obviously.
Wow, way to make another asinine analogy. Good job.
Yes, a woman has the legal right to an abortion, The problem is that wasn't always the case and there are those who try or want that right and choice revoked or severely limited.
It'd not OK to kill babies and there are laws against it. But an embryo/fetus is not yet a baby, legally, factually, or scientifically.
What's the legal definition of baby?
It is, as you apparently concede, perfectly appropriate linguistically to call a baby, a baby, while it is still in the womb. So it's perfectly correct to use the term as I did. You are just arguing about what subset of babies it's legally okay to kill now.
You misconstrued what I said, and probably intentionally too. I said people can call uterine contents a "baby" or whatever they want. But that doesn't mean it's an actual baby. It's not. And I never saidid it was. It's an embryo/fetus. And it's not a baby until birth. Thats just fact!
We don't know - None of us. I always err on the side of life.
I said people can call uterine contents a "baby" or whatever they want
They do. Because it is.
ut that doesn't mean it's an actual baby. It's no
Sure it does. That's why people ask a pregnant woman "how the's baby?" It's the English language you are arguing against.
And it's not a baby until birth. Thats just fact!
But it's not. the term baby refers to a baby in the womb as well as outside of it. That's the inescapable "fact" of how the word is used. To deny it is dishonest. Ask yourself which sentence a pregnant woman is more likely to say "the embryo kept me awake by kicking all night." Or, "The baby kept me awake by kicking all night." We all know it's the latter.
So it's factually correct to say abortions kills babies. You don't get to redefine a word to suit your political agenda.
It's always amusing to see abortion cheerleaders shy away from being honest about the reality of what they advocate for. It speaks volumes.
No that is vernacular. How can you call this:
A baby?. It isn't.
Yes, because then it is a baby.
What political agenda? Maybe it's your religious beliefs that are getting in the way and that is why you can make something as clear as this into a political statement when it isn't.
Well, 1. I am not an abortion cheerleader. I advocate for choice and 2. I believe that there are limitations to that choice.
6 months post birth, yes. 6 months gestation, no.
Yes, because then it is a baby.
So you agree with me. Great. That human life which kept it's mother up all night with kicking, and which you agree is properly called a baby, can be aborted the next day.. Thus killing a baby.
What political agend
Because its bad politics to admit you kill babies. You have to dehumanize the victims and refusing to refer to them as babies when you kill them makes it easier to do so. Dehumanization is the necessary first step to killing. Word choice (linguistics) and politics are inextricably intertwined. Ask Orwell or Chomsky.
Maybe it's your religious beliefs that are
My atheism makes me want to protect human life? I'll think about that. k
I am not an abortion cheerleader. I advocate for choice and 2. I believe that there are limitations to that choic
Then why is so hard to admit that aborting a human that is capable of living outside the womb kills a baby, when you admit the word baby is a perfectly appropriate term for a pregnant mother to use when referring to her kicking child in the womb
Personally, after 16 weeks, which is when a fetus makes all the appropriate neuro connections, I think it is a baby, and I don't advocate for abortions unless for the mother's life.
OK you explain it. Because scientifically, prior to the 16 week period, it is not a baby.
Sean, do you read my posts? When have I advocated for killing a baby that can live outside the human body? Nevermind that.. I even hedge in favor of a very preterm baby which can't live outside the human body.
So I don't understand how you disagree with me. At 16 weeks, or much further along in the process, an abortion can be performed. Thus it's axiomatic that abortion kills babies because 16 week old babies can be aborted (and frequently are)
Because scientifically, prior to the 16 week period, it is not a baby.
But abortions occur all the time after 16 weeks. So abortions kill babies.
s? When have I advocated for killing a baby that can live outside the human body?
I never claimed you did. But babies that can live outside the human body are sometimes aborted.
Please read what I wrote again. It was claimed that it's illegal to kill babies. I said that's false. It's obviously legal. You've made clear that you believe that some abortions kill babies, so I don't know what you are disagreeing with.
The pregnant ones. It is their decision to make.
They can, but it's not.
Why don't you look up the English word 'vernacular,' then get back to me.
Yes, it is.
It refers to uterine contents. But the correct term is embryo/fetus.
How it's used doesn't change the definition of what actually is. Baby is the correct term for after birth. Embryo/fetus, ect is the correct term before. Look it up.
Immaterial. Term usage doesn't automatically mean it's the correct terminology.
Elective abortions can be performed up the point of viability.
A 16 week fetus is not yet a baby. Again, look it up.
Wrong again, from both a scientific and legal perspective.
Only in cases of fetal deformity/demise or health threats to the woman.
Really? Which states makes it legal to kill babies? I'm willing to bet if I killed a baby, I'd be sent to prison.
How melodramatic.
Because it's incorrect.
Please stop the desperate flailing around. Nothing you wrote contradicts the logic of my argument. We call babies in the wombs babies, and babies (including viable ones) are legally aborted. Those are inescapable facts.
You've already admitted(how could you not! ) that we call babies in the womb babies. You can't argue against that anymore than you can argue you we don't call the sky blue.
In your world, what do expectant mothers call their babies while pregnant? Dogs? Clumps of cells? Wolverines?
Of course not. The correct word is baby. That's what language does. It conveys a generally understood meaning. And any honest person knows when an expectant mother talks about her baby kicking, she's referring to the human life in her stomach.
But I'm willing to let you discredit yourself. If you have to resort to arguing that mother's don't commonly refer to their baby in the womb as a baby, it's your credibility.
Some of the species of each item on your list are threatened with extinction. This has zilch to do with abortion.
Speak for yourself!
Let me know when you formulate a logical argument instead of emotionally based rhetoric.
You call it a flying Zucchini Person for all I care. The FACT is, no matter what you call it, it's an embryo or fetus. That's an inescapable scientific fact.
See previous statement. You're really grasping at straws in thinking calling an unborn a "baby" automatically makes it so.
In my world, I couldn't care less what anyone calls it. I'll call it for what it is, a fetus.
Only after birth.
Immaterial. I use proper terminology. Not emotionally based vernaculars.
I never said an expectant mother doesn't refer to her unborn as a "baby." I've said the term "baby" is the incorrect terminology. And I've provided the correct scientific terms. Clearly you either haven't been paying attention to what I said, or just didn't get it. Which is it?
Coming from you that is a hoot.
Thought you had the market cornered on willful inflammatory language.
formulate a logical argument instead of emotionally based rhetoric.
I can always tell you are getting desperate when you start whining that others use "emotionally based rhetoric" Your shtick is obvious.
My argument is perfectly logical, which is why you can't refute it.
The FACT is, no matter what you call it, it's an embryo or fetus
If expectant mothers said "The embryo is kicking!," you might have a point
But you know, I know, and everyone reading this forum knows the standard word used is "baby." To claim otherwise is dishonest.
And this should be obvious to anyone familiar with the English language, but more than one word can be used to describe something. The idea that because it can be called a fetus somehow means it cannot be called a baby is preposterous.
, I couldn't care less what anyone calls it. I'll call it for what it is, a fetus.
You can call it what you want. I'm sure you are a hit at parties correcting women about what they call their babies.
never said an expectant mother doesn't refer to her unborn as a "baby.'
Then you've lost the argument. You agree that the word baby refers to unborn children. Whether you, personally, approve of it's usage in that context is completely irrelevant. It's meaning is defined by usage, not your wishes. That's how language works.
See. we agree that the word baby refers to unborn children and that said that unborn children can be aborted. Thus abortion kills babies. It's an airtight argument.
Sean, most abortions are done within the first trimester. That is 12 weeks. From the CDC:
But there is usually a reason, like because of the mother's health. When I was in the hospital trying to keep my pregnancy, I actually saw a mom have to decide to die from the meds that were keeping the baby but giving her mini strokes or abort. Luckily that wasn't me.
My issue is that most late term abortions are not done willy nilly. They are done for a reason.
I like that idea
Sean, most abortions are done within the first trimester. That is 12 weeks. From the CDC:
so what? That doesn’t have anything to do the point I made. Given that there’s about a million abortions a year, there’s a lot that don’t occur in first 12 weeks, even if “most” do.
But there is usually a reason,
again, so what? Usually, most and all the other qualifications you need to use simply means not all.
most late term abortions are not done willy nilly. They are done for a reason.
Even if we are just talking about late term, third trimester abortions, “most” leaves a lot of wiggle room.
at the end of the day, a significant number babies are killed, no matter how many qualifications you use.
Sean, in 2016 (which is the most recent stat) there were 623,471 legal induced abortions, so you are off by about 400,000. Furthermore, 91% were done before 12 weeks or 567,358, which is hardly the numbers you are talking about.
What do you base that on?
At the end of the day, all late term abortions are done by doctors, who are the ones who make the call, if these are legal abortions.
For someone who insist that terminology is of utmost importance, it may behoove you to learn the terminology of the stages of development.
Perrie, I used the average historically, rather than pick one year, because the actual number has no bearing on the actual point being discussed.
Babies, as you yourself define them, are still legally killed. Nothing you've written changes that, or even addresses that.
.
No babies are being killed no matter how many times you say it. Nothing you've written changes that or addresses that.
You'll excuse me if I don't invest the time and energy to explain what's going on to you today.
No need. You have absolutely nothing to contribute in that regard.
Since you appear to need to have the last word, proceed.
You must be projecting.
You haven't made any real argument. Just erroneous proclamations. But hey, if you want to be a legend in your own mind, go right ahead.
When you learn proper scientific terminology, then get back to me.
I call it what it is, especially from the scientific standpoint.
It seems you still fail to understand vernaculars.
Try arguing that in a court of law. They'll laugh you right out, as I'm doing.
Except that an embryo/fetus is not a baby, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise. And since abortion is legal, there's really no problem.
That's because you seem incapable of doing so without resorting to the usual platitudes.
You haven't made any real argument. Just erroneous proclamations.
You must be projecting. Your "argument" consists of conceding I am, in fact correct, and then bizarrely claiming that because you personally prefer using other word, it's wrong to use a word you've already conceded is correct. That's now how the English language works, and it's sad I have to keep pointing out that you don't control which appropriate words are used.
It seems you still fail to understand vernaculars
It seems you don't, if you think that helps you. Of course I'm speaking in the vernacular, I'm on website discussion forum. Unless you can prove it's wrong to use in the vernacular, you have no point.
Your whole argument consists of "you are appropriately using the vernacular on an informal web discussion board." To which my response would be, "no shit, Sherlock"
ry arguing that in a court of law. They'll laugh you right out, as I'm doin
I'm sorry. Do you think this is a court of law? Obviously not, because your next line, "they'll laugh you right as I'm doing" would of course be laughed out of the court room itself if you ever tried to use it to rebut an argument in a Court of law. So while you have no problem using the vernacular on this site, it's hypocritical to claim others can't. Given that your response to arguments often consists of nothing more than the juvenile, unsubstantiated "no, it's not" why would you even think it's a good idea to attack the use of the vernacular? Let's be honest, those responses of yours are barely a bare step up from sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na na a bo bo"
This is a website discussion forum, not a court of law. Everyone here is speaking in the vernacular, if you haven't noticed. So, the usage, which you admit is correct, is quite appropriate in the circumstance. To try and single out one correctly used word in sea of vernacular speech as forbidden shows just how powerful a hold that word has on you emotionally.
bryo/fetus is not a baby, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise
But you've agreed to the opposite, that's an embryo is commonly referred to a baby. Put your emotions aside and follow the logic. We've agreed, it's perfectly appropriate to refer to an unborn child as a baby. It's also uncontested that an abortion ends the unborn child's life. Therefore, abortion kills babies.
It's sad you can't get past your emotional reaction to the word baby.
And since abortion is legal, there's really no problem.
Unless you are the baby being cut up. But abortion's legality has nothing to do with this. Would they suddenly be babies if abortion were illegal? You think the acceptability of calling a baby in the womb a baby hinges on the legality of abortion? What a random thin
So I presume that means that you are against abortion even prior to quickening and your comment was irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up.
Is someone trying to claim that humans aren't animals?
No one ever says they are baking batter either.
they usually describe what they expect, like a cake...
As if there’s a difference
"As if there’s a difference'
It would be helpful if you copied and pasted what you were responding to. I don't have the time or patience to go through all the comments to figure out what you're referring to.
And now we have a safe way to attempt to reverse that method as well.
What the fuck are you talking about
Reverse what method?
The two pill method.
The two pill method.
Attempt to reverse an abortion? Moronic.
A quite ineffective and time limited method, with little scientific backing to support its use.
Mifepristone is generally used to prevent a miscarriage. It is easily available. It gives the woman who changes her mind the chance to make that choice
Mifeprestone is used to induce an abortion. Progesterone has been proposed as a method to reverse the effects of mifeprestone. Before putting forth such information, you might want to check that you're proposing the correct meds.
I don't think offering women a "treatment" that could cause them to bleed out is very "pro-life".
That doesn't change or refute my statement. And based on what Sandy found, it seems to cause more harm than good.
Like trying to re-implant an ectopic pregnancy.
Pro lifers only care about the fetus...they don't care if the woman dies because she spread her legs in the first place.
I've actually heard some people say if a woman dies or suffers a complication from abortiom, then she deserves it for having an abortion. How someone can hate women like that boggles the mind.
They are only pro-fetus and it's disgusting. They are NOT prolife they are anti-women
You hit the nail on the head.
I have the hardest time with many 'pro-lifers" that get all up in arms about paying taxes ("keep your government hands off my money") but think it is perfectly acceptable to get their hands inside a woman's uterus.
The medication that is used to reduce the odds of a miscarriage is safe. It’s used regularly for that. The abortion pill seeks to cause one. One who is supposedly pro choice should have no problem with a woman choosing to change her mind has a way to try to undo her prior choice.
You need to provide proof/documentation of this medication and its' safety.
I've asked him for that too: scientific, peer reviewed studies regarding the efficacy of that med. But I also agree that if a woman chooses to reverse an abortion, she should be allowed to do so.
I agree also but I doubt that's an option, anywhere.
I would agree, if it hadn't already been shown to be so risky that emergency transport was required. Since the efficacy hasn't been demonstrated, and lack of safety has, I can't agree that this should be an option. And I doubt many health care providers would be willing to take the risk of prescribing it. From the study, the risks far outweigh the benefits.
If the risk:benefit ratio could be reversed, I would agree that it should be an option.
It''s funny how some people forget the details. They're so tunnel vis ione on their beliefs, they neglect anything else.
Did you not read Sandy's post? It is clearly not safe.
I didn’t say in 8.2.16 what I’m quoted in 8.2.22 as saying there.
How is your quote relevant? The words I quoted directly from your comment merely reveal that you don't know what the meds you're talking about actually do, and yet you want to propose that they be used in a manner that has been demonstrated to be extremely unsafe.
There has been a study started to research your proposed method of reversing a medication abortion. It was shown to be so unsafe that the study had to be abandoned quickly.
And yet you're still pushing that method as viable.
That's not pro-life. It's potentially pro-death, for the women in question.
Your rebuttal is nonsense. Dinesh D'Souza is a lying tRumpster.
Who are the 1 in 4 American women who choose abortion?
Author
Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Disclosure statement
Luu D Ireland is affiliated with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
Partners
University of Massachusetts provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.
The abortion debate is at the center of U.S. political dialogue. Voices from both sides flood social media feeds, newspapers, radio and television programs.
In the last year, attacks on reproductive rights sharply increased. In 2019, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi successfully passed so-called “heartbeat” bans to prohibit abortion as early as 6 to 8 weeks. Alabama is the first state to pass a complete abortion ban without exceptions for rape or incest. Due to ongoing legal challenges, these bans have yet to go into effect.
One important group’s voice is often absent in this heated debate: the women who choose abortion. While 1 in 4 women will undergo abortion in her lifetime, stigma keeps their stories untold. As an obstetrician/gynecologist who provides full spectrum reproductive health care, I hear these stories daily.
Unintended pregnancy
In 2011, nearly half of pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended . This reflects a 6% drop in unintended pregnancies since 2008, largely due to Title X family planning programs and easier access to birth control.
Unintended pregnancy remains most common among poor women, women of color and women without a high school education. Women living in poverty have a rate of unintended pregnancy five times higher than those with middle or high incomes. Black women are twice as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as white women.
Barriers to contraception play a major role. Among women with unintended pregnancies, 54% were using no birth control. Another 41% were inconsistently using birth control at the time of conception.
Forty-two percent of women with unintended pregnancy choose to end their pregnancies.
The women who choose abortion
Abortion is a routine part of reproductive health care. Approximately 25% of women in the U.S. will undergo an abortion before the age of 45. The Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy institute in New York City, has been tracking these data for the last 50 years.
This iframe is not allowed
American women have abortions with similar frequency to women living in other developed nations . The bulk of abortion patients are in their 20s .
Women of all races and ethnicities choose abortion. In 2014, 39% of abortion patients were white, 28% were black and 25% were Latinx. Similarly, women of all religious affiliations choose to end their pregnancies at similar frequencies.
Most of these women understand what it means to parent a child. More than half of abortion patients in 2014 were already mothers.
Poor women account for the majority of abortion patients. Fifty-three percent of women pay out-of-pocket for their abortion. The rest use private or state-funded insurance plans.
Women choose abortion for multiple reasons . The most common reason cited is that pregnancy would interfere with education, work or ability to care for dependents.
Financial stress also plays a major role in women’s decision-making. Seventy-three percent of women reported that they could not afford a baby at the time. Nearly half cited relationship difficulties or wanting to avoid single motherhood. More than a third of women felt their families were complete.
This iframe is not allowed
Twelve percent chose abortion due to their own health problems. For example, one of my patients and her husband were thrilled to find out she was pregnant for the first time. Then she received the diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer. She had to choose between lifesaving chemotherapy and radiation or her pregnancy.
Safety of abortion
Nine in 10 women who receive abortions undergo abortion in the first trimester. Only 1.3% of abortions happen with pregnancies past 20 weeks of gestation.
This iframe is not allowed
When performed legally by skilled practitioners, abortion is a safe medical procedure with a low complication rate. The risk of major complications – such as hospitalization, infection, blood transfusion or surgery – in first-trimester procedures is less than 0.5%. The risk of dying in childbirth is 14 times higher than the risk of dying from safe abortion.
Studies show that abortion is not linked to long-term health complications, including breast cancer, infertility, miscarriage or psychiatric disorders. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , the nation’s leading professional organization of obstetricians and gynecologists, has reaffirmed the safety of abortion.
Conversely, the negative impacts from abortion restrictions are well-documented. Women unable to obtain abortions are more likely live in poverty or depend on cash assistance, and less likely to work full-time.
Since 2011, politicians have enacted over 400 pieces of legislation restricting this medical procedure.
Access to safe and legal abortion is an essential part of health care. Most Americans agree . Sixty-four percent of Americans, regardless of pro-choice or pro-life status, would like to see the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision upheld. Another 79% want abortion to remain legal. As a physician, the health and livelihood of my patients depend on it.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 27, 2018 .
The only way to end abortions, is to stop the "free love" sex movement that the hippies started in the 60s. Until people start to learn that sex comes at a price and is not "free", we will have this problem. It's probably hopeless to be honest. Contraceptives are readily available and affordable in this country as well as public school education, yet this continues to be an issue. What can you do about dumb people?
Well, a lot of conservatives push "abstinence only" education and work their asses off to close places like Planned Parenthood that provide birth control and sex ed. Until these dumb people stop being so stupid, it probably IS hopeless.
When did high school stop teaching sex ed? That is publicly funded and mandatory; unless something has changed.
Of course it didn't stop teenage pregnancy back when I went; but maybe today's youth are smarter and more informed since teenage pregnancy seems to be on the decline.
I personally don't like Planned Parenthood. Had one very bad experience with them back when I was in college. I have no problem with their existence; but tax payer money should not go to funding them. Of course I feel the same way about any "non profit' or organization that operates a PAC.
They don't take taxpayer funding
I agree when related to abortion but i don't agree with outlawing a persons freedom to get an abortion if so desired. There are enough pro choice people out there, that are passionate about "Pro Choice", that they should have no problem collecting enough donations to fund their own abortion clinics. Other than that, i have zero problem with PP.
Release the hounds!
Right.
What do you call it when PP receives federal funding?
Next time try something that isn't so easy to disprove.
See comment 13
Teaching "abstinence only" sex ed doesn't actually count as teaching sex ed. Kids taught abstinence only don't have less sex, but when they do have sex they're more likely to get pregnant/get someone pregnant/get an STD because they don't use protection.
And no, sex ed isn't mandatory.
They don't spend any taxpayer funds on abortion.
Instead, they provide health care to lots of people and they do a lot to prevent unwanted pregnancies. A great organization.
Tess can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was referring to PP receiving tax money for abortions. On that, with certain exceptions, he is correct.
That's she, Gordy, no harm done, and I was mistaken, they no longer receive Title X funding.
You are correct though.
My mistake. Apologies Tess
No need.
So your solution is what, regress back to Puritan times?
As they should be. Although, some schools might opt for abstinence only education or parents might prohibit sex ed for their children.
Only because some people think abortion is their business and want to restrict or prohibit it. It probably wouldn't be if people minded their own business, especially when it comes to another's choice.
"They don't take taxpayer funding"
Whaaaaaaa ?
My mistake, they no longer receive Title IX funding
Though many morons are trying to shut them down completely despite only 3% of their services are towards abortion
"My mistake, they no longer receive Title IX funding"
"X" Funding ?
So ..… now they only receive 440 million a year, instead of 500 million a year in tax payer money ?
It's Title X not IX
So what?
I made a mistake.
Who cares?
It is me was correct, for once
I'll mark it on my calendar
No, I'm sure yours is though.
I don't think anyone would like the world where fair access to abortion is outlawed. Row v Wade is based on privacy rights between a individual and her health care practitioner. Reverse that and you open the door to reverse HIPPA. I'm certain Conservatives will be happy to share all their health information with anyone and everyone that can pay a hospital to get it.
In the Bible, did Jesus Christ ever specifically say abortion was bad?
Most people when presented with evidence of what the bible really does or does not say could care less. All they care about are their own feelings and interpretations of the world and they use any means necessary to try and enforce it on everyone else, including using religion as a scapegoat.
At no time has anyone I talked to that has used "God" or the bible as an excuse ever went...oh really, I did not realize the bible really said that, I am going to change the way I feel about X.
And now for something completely different:
Love that skit!
Not funny, stupid.