Kristi Burton Brown

Three things that may happen to you during an abortion

Kristi Burton Brown
By Kristi Burton Brown

December 5, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - When women consider abortion, it’s important that they’re aware of the hard stuff, too – not just the easy things that abortion clinic counselors often tell them. There are always two sides to every story, and it’s vital that women hear this other side.

Abortion is not just an easy procedure that takes care of all their problems. Abortion doesn’t just wipe the slate clean. Sure, there are a few women out there who will stick to that claim. But for the vast majority of women and girls, abortion is a difficult, heart-rending tragedy. From an article on the Huffington Post:

Abortion is a tragedy in and of itself, regardless of whether or not we, as individuals or as a society, feel that it is so.

It’s not an easy thing to end the life of a child, especially your own. It’s not an easy thing to pretend you were never a mother when you know, deep in your heart, that you still are. And abortion is even harder and more tragic for women when they are uninformed and when they’ve never been presented with the real truth and the real risks. I’m going to be blunt and to the point, so here goes.

1) You may lose your life or be permanently injured.

While the majority of women do not die from their abortions, it is definitely a risk that abortion clinics rarely admit. Abortion is not just a safe, simple procedure. Some abortionists are more concerned with efficiency and money than the lives of women, and it shows in the deaths of women under their care. The Real Choice blog tells the stories of hundreds of women and teens who died or were severely injured from their abortions – from causes such as cardiac arrest, bleeding, choking to death on vomit, and embolism. Ladies, abortion is not a walk in the park. You need to realize that you may die from this procedure.

There are many risks involved with teen abortion. To begin with death can occur because of teen abortion. It is reported that legal abortion is the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States. These deaths are caused by infection, embolism, hemorrhage, anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. The actual figure of deaths caused by legal abortion is probably much higher than reported since many of the maternal deaths reported are not recorded as being caused by legal abortion.

RU-486, an abortion drug (a medical abortion rather than a surgical abortion) also risks women’s lives. In 2009, it was reported that 29 women had died from the use of RU-486, nine more had had their lives endangered, and 120 had received blood transfusions, while over 200 were hospitalized. Despite FDA approval, this is not a safe drug for women, especially when abortion clinics continue to disregard the standard procedure for giving the drug to women and thus endanger their lives.

One of the most concerning things that women need to realize is that injuries and deaths at abortion clinics across the country are on the rise.

2) You may lose your motherhood entirely.

Some women believe that their abortions will allow them to postpone motherhood until they believe they are ready. However, all too often, these women never get another chance. In yet another example of nondisclosure by abortion clinics, women are rarely properly informed that an abortion – and especially multiple abortions – may cost them their fertility.

While this article first seems to almost deny the claim that women can lose their fertility in abortion, the end section admits the risks that are present and which all women should be aware of:

The most serious problems occur in those rare instances when a post-operative infection develops. But if a woman has had a significant number of abortions, scar tissue might develop at the top of the cervix or inside the uterus. If this interferes with later attempts to get pregnant, it is often possible to repair this medically. A woman who has had more than one abortion may also have a weakened cervix, due to repeated dilations during the earlier procedures; this could cause difficulty sustaining a pregnancy later on, as the cervix could dilate (open) prematurely. In many cases a weakened or incompetent cervix can be sutured closed for the duration of a pregnancy.

Additionally, an abortion can be an emotionally challenging experience for a woman, and this in turn might have an indirect effect on fertility, if she retreats from sexual contact out of feelings of guilt or conflict.

Women should not only be advised of risks that are common or widespread. They ought to be told all of the risks so that they are fully informed. No one can guarantee a woman or a girl that her abortion will not come at the price of her future fertility. Her abortion may take the life of her first, last, and only child.

Miscarriage is also a risk after an abortion. One expert explains the risks:

Yes, having an abortion during the first trimester does increase the chances of a miscarriage later, by about 400%. The literature is not telling you the truth. But in your case, since you had an abortion so late, it would be even higher. When they force open the cervix in order to do an abortion, they damage it. There will be many tiny tears in the flesh, and this weakens it so that it can’t hold the weight of a full term baby. And yes, this damage also happens in abortions done during the first trimester. Scarring on the surface of the uterus can also be a problem, because if the placenta is trying to grow over scars, it won’t be able to grow there, so this could restrict the size and effectiveness of the placenta. Placenta previa is also a risk. This is due to scarring as well. When they do a surgical abortion, they have to cut away the placenta, and they scrape the surface. This is why scars form.

3) You may pay – both literally and emotionally – to end the life of your child.

After abortion, many women experience post-traumatic stress disorder. (There is help for you if you’re in a spot like this.) Many realize, all too late, that their unborn children were unique, helpless individuals who needed a chance at life that only their mothers could have given them. Abortion clinics specialize in giving women inaccurate information about an unborn child’s development, often leaving out the true facts about when a baby’s heart begins to beat (22 days), when brain waves can be measured (about six weeks), and when a baby’s organs are present and functioning (eight weeks for all but the lungs; they follow at 11-12 weeks). At five weeks, all four heart chambers are functioning. At eight to ten weeks, a baby can suck her thumb.

One of the most surprising things about fetal development is that nothing significantly new happens after 12 weeks after conception – the child simply gets bigger and matures. Nearly 90 percent of abortions are done before the twelfth week, when the child is supposedly ‘blood clots’ (Mifeprex [mifepristone] pamphlet) or ‘pregnancy tissue’ (Planned Parenthood document).

There is evidence that a mother’s connection to her child begins almost immediately and is basically beyond her control. Almost as soon as a child begins to exist, a psychological and biological relationship begins like no other. Multiple studies “demonstrate that a mother’s bond with her child (and the child’s attachment to her) begins during pregnancy and even at its early stages.” Experts conclude:

[T]he attachment between mother and child begins almost immediately after conception and the basis of maternal attachment is both psychological and physical, and this process, and the natural protective urges of maternal attachment, often form irrespective of whether the pregnancy was intended or wanted.

Simply put, abortion hurts a woman and takes the life of her defenseless child. Listen to the stories of other women, realize the risks, and please, choose life.

Want more info on abortion, the risks, and the realities? Check out this article, this site, and this awesome paper.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Émile Bayard's classic illustration of Cosette in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables.
Anthony Esolen Anthony Esolen Follow Anthony

Tracts and sermons alone won’t form pro-life children. Here’s what will.

Anthony Esolen Anthony Esolen Follow Anthony
By Anthony Esolen

What is remarkable in our age is not that half of our citizens believe it is wrong to kill the child in the womb, the child whose existence, except in the rare case of rape, is owing to our own voluntary actions.  That would be like congratulating ourselves for believing that it's wrong to steal someone's car, to lie under oath to hurt an enemy, to throw our aged parents into the street, or to desecrate churches.  Where is the great moral insight?  What's remarkable instead is that half of us believe it is all right to snuff out the life of that child – because nothing must be allowed to interfere with our “right” to pursue pleasure, as we use the child-making thing as a sweating-off spa on our way to money, prestige, a five-bathroom mansion for two, a tenured chair in Women's Studies, the mayoralty of Camden, another year of nights out on the town, whatever.

How have we come to this pass?  Our imaginations are stunted or diseased, that's how.
 Let churchgoers beware.  You cannot spread pro-life icing on a cake made of flour and rat poison.  Our children meet with rat poison everywhere.  Do they watch Friends on television, that un-funny amoral “comedy” about nihilist young urbanites trading depressions in the mattress with one another?  Rat poison.  Do they watch movies like – well, the moronic Titanic, wherein a shrewish girl and a pouty boy fornicate before they are swallowed by the deep blue sea?  Rat poison.  Do their school teachers feed them such exalted lyric poetry as that of Sylvia Plath, imagining what it would be like to smash her sleeping husband's head like a rotten pumpkin?  Or the bogus Laramie Project, making a hero out of a deeply disturbed young man, killed in a meth deal?  Or Toni Morrison's maudlin obsessions with race and adultery?  Is it an endless cafeteria of ghouls, vampires, girl-murderers – Lord of the Flies, without the severe moral imagination and the talent of William Golding?  Lord of the Flies, Lady of the Flies, Cheerleaders of the Flies, Lifeguard of the Flies, Mr. Goodbar of the Flies, Fight Club of the Flies, Hunger of the Flies?  Rat poison, with that peculiar character of rat poison, that the more the critter consumes, the thirstier it grows.  Vice is the addiction that mimics the habit of virtue.  One hour a week on Sunday does not flush out the strychnine.  Theology lessons are band-aids when your arteries are porous inside.  The forming of a moral imagination is not something additional in the education of a child.  It is the education of a child. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Your child sees a commercial for Planned Predators.  The commercial baldly states that it doesn't matter who your “partners” are, how many you have, or what you do – because you are the only one who has any say in the matter, and nobody has the right to judge you.  This is not the morality of a cad or a tramp.  Cads and tramps have attacks of conscience.  It is the bland oh-so-self-assured anti-morality of a demon.  It is one hundred proof grain stupidity.  It is distilled evil.  Now, we want to raise children who will do more than say, “I don't agree with that.”  Wonderful enlightenment!  We want to raise children who would look upon anyone who uttered such a thing as they would look upon someone who would fish his food out of a septic tank: incomprehensible, base, inhuman, insane.  That's the negative.  Let me give the positive.  We want to raise children who will understand and cherish the virtues of love and purity.  Those virtues must not remain mere terms or notions.  We must clothe them with flesh and blood.  Consider the following scene from Victor Hugo's masterpiece, Les Miserables.  Two pure young people, Marius and Cosette, have long beheld one another from a distance.  They have fallen in love, and finally, after many months and much seeking, the youth and the maiden meet and speak.  Here is how Hugo describes what they do every evening:

Throughout the month of May . . . in that poor, wild garden, under that shrubbery each day more perfumed and dense, two human beings composed of every chastity and every innocence, overflowing with all the felicities of Heaven, closer to archangels than men, pure, honest, intoxicated, radiant, glowed for each other in the darkness.  It seemed to Cosette that Marius had a crown, and to Marius that Cosette had a halo.  They touched, they gazed at each other, they clasped hands, they pressed close together; but there was a distance they did not pass.  Not that they respected it; they were ignorant of it.  Marius felt a barrier, Cosette's purity, and Cosette had a support, Marius' loyalty.  The first kiss was also the last.  Since then, Marius had not gone beyond touching Cosette's hand, or her scarf, or her curls, with his lips.  Cosette was to him a perfume, and not a woman.  He breathed her.  She refused nothing and he asked nothing.  Cosette was happy, and Marius was satisfied.  They were living in that ravishing condition that might be called the dazzling of one soul by another.  It was that ineffable first embrace of two virginities within the ideal.

Victor Hugo was a man well acquainted with the squalor of the streets, and the wicked things that people do to themselves and one another.  His blood ran hot, not cold – hot with indignation against the wickedness, and hot with greathearted love for what is noblest in man; with what he would call the work of God in man.  Our purveyors of rat poison have not witnessed one hundredth of the miseries and the sins that he witnessed!  But they turn our children's vision to what is dark and dead, and he raises our eyes to the everlasting hills, whence cometh our help.
 We want to raise boys like Marius and girls like Cosette.  We cannot do it with tracts in church teaching and a sermon on Sunday, as needful as those things are.  They may give us the moral, but they do not nourish the imagination.  Without story, without flesh and blood, they flare in the ear but do not ring in the conscience.  Hence the need for art and song, for stories and poetry.  Jesus taught in parables.  These are not just instruments.  They are of the essence.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

Medical staff arrested in India after accidentally aborting baby at 8 months

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

A doctor and a nurse at a prominent private hospital in India have been arrested after they allegedly administered abortion drugs to a eight-months pregnant woman accidentally, resulting in the death of her unborn child.

"We have immediately registered a case and arrested the doctor, whose negligent act has caused this," said South Jammu Superintendent of Police Rahul Malik, according to the Hindustan Times.

The woman's husband, Rakesh Sharma, told the paper that the doctor mistook Shruti Sharma for another patient who was scheduled for an abortion at the JK Medicity Hospital in Jammu on Friday afternoon.

Shruti had gone to the hospital after her gynecologist advised a routine medical examination to safeguard her and her baby's health.

Rakesh alleged that the doctor gave his wife the abortion pills without consulting her medical records. “Doctors and paramedical staff instead of administering glucose, gave her abortion medicine, which was actually meant for another patient,” he said.

"It is the worst case of negligence. I feel strongly that such hospitals should be closed. If this has happened to me today, tomorrow it can happen to any body else," Rakesh said.

While the JK Medicity's administration said it has launched an inquiry into the incident, a report from the Jagran Post stated that the district government has revoked the hospital's license.

"Jammu and Kashmir Government has ordered sealing of the private clinic after suspension of its license to operate in the wake of the incident," said Minister for Health and Medical Education Taj Mohiuddin according to the report.

National media have reported that the incident has brought illegal abortion practices in India to the attention of both the public and government officials.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

According to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, abortion is legal in India up to 20 weeks. However, the opinion of a second doctor is required if the pregnancy is past its 12th week, and abortion-inducing drugs such as mifepristone and misoprostol are allowed only by prescription up until the seventh week of pregnancy.

Moreover, abortions can be performed only in government licensed medical institutions by registered abortionists.

Indian Express reported that the accused in the incident, Dr. Amarjeet Singh, practices ayurvedic medicine (traditional Hindu medicine) and is "unsuitable for carrying out abortions."

A video posted by IndiaTV shows the parents surrounded by family members and relatives at a protest outside the JK Medicity hospital where the group is demanding punishment for those involved in the death of the child.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Queen James Bible
Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten

,

News editor fired for criticizing ‘gay Bible’, files complaint

Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten
By Kirsten Anderson

The former editor-in-chief of Iowa’s Newton Daily News has filed a religious discrimination complaint after he was fired over a post on his private blog criticizing the pro-gay Queen James Bible.

The Bible revision was produced by homosexual activists who claim to have edited the eight most commonly cited verses against homosexual behavior “in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.”

On his private blog, which has since been deactivated, Bob Eschliman wrote in April that “the LGBTQXYZ crowd and the Gaystapo” are trying to reword the Bible “to make their sinful nature ‘right with God.’”

After public outcry from homosexual activists, Shaw Media, which owns the paper, fired him on May 6.

In a statement the day of his firing, Shaw Media President John Rung said Eschliman’s “airing of [his opinion] compromised the reputation of this newspaper and his ability to lead it.”

“There will be some who will criticize our action, and mistakenly cite Mr. Eschliman’s First Amendment rights as a reason he should continue on as editor of the Newton Daily News,” Rung said.  “As previously stated, he has a right to voice his opinion. And we have a right to select an editor who we believe best represents our company and best serves the interests of our readers.”

Rung said the company has a duty “to advocate for the communities we serve” and that “to be effective advocates, we must be able to represent the entire community fairly.”

Eschliman, who has been writing professionally since 1998 and became editor-in-chief of the Newton Daily News in 2012, says that the company was aware of his personal blog when he was hired and never indicated it would be a problem for him to continue sharing his personal political and religious views.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In his religious discrimination complaint against the company, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he says that he believes he was singled out for termination because of his Christian views concerning homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.”

“As a lifelong writer, I have maintained a personal blog on the Internet with some personal thoughts and writings,” Eschliman wrote. “Newton Daily News, my employer, never had a policy prohibiting personal blogging, Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media. In fact, my employer encouraged us to engage in social media on a personal level and I am aware of several employees of Newton Daily News who continue to blog and are still employed with Shaw Media.”

“There is no question that I was fired for holding and talking about my sincerely held religious beliefs on my personal blog during my off-duty time from the comfort of my own home,” Eschliman wrote. “Shaw Media directly discriminated against me because of my religious beliefs and my identity as an evangelical Christian who believes in Holy Scripture and the Biblical view of marriage.

“Moreover, Shaw Media announced that not only were they firing me based upon my religious beliefs, but that they would not hire or allow anyone to work at Shaw Media who holds religious beliefs similar to mine, which would include an automatic denial of any accommodation of those who share my sincerely held religious beliefs,” he added.

Neither Shaw Media nor the Newton Daily News have been willing to provide further comment to the press on the matter, citing pending litigation.

Matthew Whitaker, an attorney with Liberty Institute who is assisting Eschliman with his complaint, said the law is on his client’s side.

“No one should be fired for simply expressing his religious beliefs,” Whitaker said in a statement. “In America, it is against the law to fire an employee for expressing a religious belief in public.  This kind of religious intolerance by an employer has no place in today’s welcoming workforce.”

According to Whitaker, if the EEOC rules in Eschliman’s favor, Shaw Media could be forced to give him back pay, front pay, and a monetary settlement.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook