Kristi Burton Brown

Opinion

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

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



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A photo of Kim Tucci at 25 weeks gestation Erin Elizabeth Photography
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
Image
An ultrasound of the five different compartments, each with its own baby, inside Kim's womb.

AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life. 

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September. 

“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote. 

Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds. 

The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again. 

After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test. 

“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.

The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five. 

“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”

“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.

Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.” 

“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”

“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.” 

“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.” 

“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born. 

The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads. 

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution. 

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters. 

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it. 

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said. 

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms. 

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added. 

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born. 

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
JStone / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.

"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.

There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.

That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.

“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."

Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.

All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.

On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.

But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook