Monday, August 10, 2015

Abortion is Never Medically Necessary to Save a Mother’s Life, This Case Shows Why


Now that we have been introduced to industrial grade fetus harvesting as presently practiced, we may as well toss this particular pro abortion argument under the wheels as well.

We have had two generations of abortion on demand and the truth has become rather apparent.  It is infanticide on demand and it is been applied as a form of birth control for the convenience of the mother regardless of society's desire or needs.

There is much more that we can do for mothers.  We need to do much more and we need to be smarter.  Yet this has been true for thousands of years as well.  Abortion or infanticide is the worst  available option.

I know how to end poverty and a natural corollary will be internalized child and mother support that will make infanticide extremely unwelcome, particularly after the 49 day after conception and frowned upon before then.

One aspect of all this can be regulated into existence today thanks to science.  All babies and fetuses as well can be DNAed and entered into a register that confirms the responsible father.  This father immediately becomes financially responsible.  It also makes the risk of rape very serious and real to the potential father.  It becomes a ghost that keeps on taking.

Of course then we will have women preying on men to lock in the pension plan as well.  It never ends.

Abortion is Never Medically Necessary to Save a Mother’s Life, This Case Shows Why

Sarah Zagorski Jul 17, 2015 | 12:33PM Washington, DC 

In an op-ed by Lila Rose, the President of Live Action, she addresses the situation in Paraguay where a 10-year-old girl is pregnant as a result of rape. As LifeNews previously reported, in April the girl’s mother requested that the child be granted an exception from the pro-life country’s abortion law, which bans the procedure unless the mother’s life is in danger.

But after the tragic incident, the Health Minister of Paraguay, Dr. Antonio Barrios, said that abortion was out of the question since the girl is in her 23rd week of pregnancy. He said, “If there needed to be an abortion, it had to be before the 20th week.” Now the girl is actually in her 26th week of pregnancy but abortion proponents are still demanding that she receive a late-abortion.

Rose explains, “…Amnesty International has gone so far as to produce an “Urgent Action” report, calling on people to write Paraguayan authorities to “save her life” by aborting her now six-month baby. Meanwhile, powerful pro-abortion groups like the International Planned Parenthood Federation are already beginning to advance their radical agenda to liberalize abortion in nations like Paraguay by using this young girl’s tragic plight.”

These abortion groups argue that the procedure is safer than childbirth and that it is necessary to save the child’s life. However, the truth is the girl’s life is not in danger and a late-abortion would be damaging to the child. In fact, statistics show that the first year following a late abortion (after 12 weeks) a woman has over three times the risk of death compared to giving birth. Additionally, this doesn’t take into account the psychological danger of abortion. A study in The British Medical Journal reveals that girls who’ve had one or more abortions are ten times more likely to commit suicide than those who never aborted.

[ Why is this not common knowledge? arclein ]

Additionally, Rose points out another reality that many pro-abortion supporters conveniently overlook. She said, “Even if her young body cannot sustain maintaining pregnancy to 40 weeks, delivering this now-viable fetus via inducing labor or a C-section can result in a live birth; no abortion is needed. And that’s the reality: abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life.”

Rose concludes by sharing the testimony of former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, who reiterates that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.

…Abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. The Dublin Declaration makes this clear, with more than 1,000 signatures from obstetricians, neonatologists, pediatricians, midwives, and other medical professionals claiming that fact.” This is reinforced by the testimony of Dr. Anthony Levatino, a reformed abortionist, who described a typical “life of the mother” case as he saw it:

“During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies [via live delivery by C-section] to save mothers’ lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.”

In other words, when a life-in-danger medical condition arises, the solution is not to kill the baby, but to address what’s wrong with the woman. Granted, if we’re talking before viability, this may not always result in the preborn child surviving.

For example, removing the woman’s fallopian tube via salpingectomy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or inducing labor to remove infected membranes in the case of chorioamnionitis, means the preborn child won’t be able to sustain life. Not being able to save someone because we lack the technology to do so, however, is entirely different from directly killing them; the latter is what abortion is, and that is always a grave injustice against a helpless human life.

Moreover, there are other situations where the child is likely to survive thanks to advancing incubator technology and viability generally being at 24 weeks (with some preborn children surviving earlier).

No comments:

There was an error in this gadget