Kristi Burton Brown

‘Therapeutic abortion,’ and other nonsensical pro-abortion phrases

Kristi Burton Brown
By Kristi Burton Brown
Image

January 13, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a good source for truth when it comes to the abortion industry.  During the two years he directed an abortion clinic in New York, the clinic performed 60,000 abortions.  He admits to having done 5,000 abortions himself and supervising another 10,000.  In his own words, “I have 75,000 abortions in my life.  Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject.”

And what does Dr. Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL, have to say about the slogans so frequently thrown around by the promoters of abortion?  He remembers laughing when his organization made up the slogans “freedom of choice” and “women must have control over their own bodies.”  He reports, “We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion.”  Dr. Nathanson also admits that the abortion movement was based on lies, not women’s rights.

[W]e simply fabricated the results of fictional polls.  We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion….We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S….Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.  The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually.  The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.  These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion laws….[A]bortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.

Times are changing, and while the slogans Dr. Nathanson referred to are still used, there are new and modern ones that have been added to the mix.  Equal to the original slogans, they are meant to capture public opinion, not to promote truth or the actual positions of the people who so frequently spout them.

For instance: “abortion care”.  Um, what does killing a human being have to do with “care”?  How can anyone even include the words murder and care in the same sentence?  This is exactly the same as saying “kidnapping care” or “murder care.”  Ok, except for the fact that abortion isn’t illegal…yet.  But other than that, there’s no difference.  I simply can’t wrap my mind around the concept that killing an innocent, voiceless human being is a way to “care.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

For anyone who claims that abortion cares about women (and is willing to admit it certainly doesn’t care about the baby), why not find a different way to help a mother than kill her child?  How about paying her rent?  How about paying her medical expenses during pregnancy or helping her connect with organizations that do this?  What about adopting her child?  Those are true ways to care about a mother.

To explain myself a little better, if you wanted to help a tired mother who stayed home with her four children under the age of five, you wouldn’t suggest killing the two youngest children to help her out.  You’d go babysit.  You’d pick up groceries, clean her house, make some freezer meals.  I think it’s time pro-choice people stopped taking the easy way out to “help” women and started actually doing something practical for them (like they always say we should do).  Killing is not, cannot be, and never will be the answer.

Another example:  “reproductive justice”. This one particularly irks me.  One Wikipedia definition I found for this lovely term is “a concept linking reproductive health with social justice.”  Excuse me?  Why isn’t my heart health linked with social justice?  What about my brain health?  Or just my overall health in general?  Why does only my reproductive health need special protections?  I’m kind of offended that all of me isn’t included in this idea of social justice.  Obviously, I’m joking.  But I have to make these kind of ridiculous jokes to illustrate the ridiculousness of this new term.  In fact, I’m dedicating a future article solely to this term.  Stay tuned.

One more:  “therapeutic termination”.  Here are a few definitions I found:

1. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.

2. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.

3. A legally induced abortion for medical reasons (as when the mother’s life is threatened).

Ok, hold it right there.  The pro-abortion side tries to make this term apply to scenarios that it has no business applying it to.  For instance, they apply it to abortion done because the baby would have been born disabled.  That in no way, shape, or form saves the life or health of the mother.  It kills an innocent baby because he or she was different than the rest of us.

In addition, there is no way “therapeutic” termination should apply to “the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.”  What?  This definition makes it sound like all abortions are therapeutic and helpful.  Please.  They are anything but.  And the fact that this definition has found its way into an actual dictionary just demonstrates how far the deception has sunk into our culture.

Finally, it’s even inaccurate to call an abortion to save the mother’s health or life a “therapeutic termination.”  Any time you intentionally kill a baby, regardless of the reasons, let’s just call it for what it is—an abortion; a killing.  You never need to dismember a living baby to save its mother.  Removing a baby in an ectopic pregnancy is not intentionally killing the baby.  It’s a sad result of what must be done, not an abortion.  Chemotherapy for mothers with cancer is not done with the intention to kill the baby.  It all comes down to intention.

In Abortion: A Doctor’s Perspective, A Woman’s Dilemma, abortionist Don Sloan (who, unlike Dr. Nathanson, has not yet converted to the pro-life side) states:

“In gynecology, there are only three procedures that we consider purely elective…Abortions are elective.  There are very few conditions–now maybe none–that require the termination of a pregnancy….The idea of abortion to save the mother’s life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure–but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist.  It’s a real stretch of our thinking.  Abortions…can be seen as always purely elective–not necessary from a medical standpoint.”

So, instead of making it sound good, let’s call it for what it is.  Straight from the horse’s mouth, they’re elective abortions not therapeutic terminations.

Reprinted with permission from LiveAction.org

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook