Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/10/2026 12:53:11 AM PDT by Morgana
When I talk about post-viability abortions, a lot of pro-choice people claim those only happen for medical emergencies, meaning either the woman’s life is in danger or the fetus has some kind of fatal genetic abnormality. This is a myth, a pleasant fiction to help pro-choice people be comfortable with their stance.
The reality is that there are multiple places in the country where people can get abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. We have plenty of evidence to show that they will get abortions after viability on healthy fetuses carried by healthy women for no medical emergency, but at least the people claiming that later abortions are all for medical emergencies acknowledge that later abortions happen.
Sometimes I see a more ridiculous pro-choice claim like this one right here: there’s no such thing as abortions after viability at all, so it’s not just that they only happen for medical emergencies, it’s that they don’t happen, and abortions after viability are just induction of labor with the intent and the result of live birth. That is a complete fabrication.
Abortion after viability is done by injecting feticide into the heart or into the amniotic fluid, or by cutting the umbilical cord, all before extraction in order to ensure fetal demise. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Abortion providers will tell you this themselves.
This article printed in the Boston Review, “Why I Provide Abortions,” is a good example. The entire article is worth reading, but in particular I want to draw your attention to this passage where the author, who is an abortion provider, says, “Imagine a woman in her third trimester, thirty or even forty weeks pregnant.” The author points out that the woman is visibly pregnant at this point. There’s no option for a private abortion because her social circles know she’s pregnant.
The author argues that if the woman seeks an abortion at this stage, it will be for various serious reasons, although not necessarily for health-related reasons. But my main point is this quote right here: “If a woman decides to proceed with an abortion after twenty-four weeks, she must accept the terms: that she will deliver a baby, and that baby will be dead.” At that late stage in pregnancy, there’s no getting around childbirth. The fetus is too large to remove without going through labor and delivery.
This may be why a lot of people believe that this is just birth and not abortion, because childbirth has to happen either way. And so why not go through childbirth and delivery (if you have to do that either way) for a live birth, with the intent of the child surviving? That’s a great question, and people who support abortion should think about that.
Because post-viability abortion is not about induction of labor with intent or result of live birth. Post-viability abortion is about making sure the fetus is dead and then laboring and delivering a dead child.
If you’re pro-choice because you think this is all about bodily autonomy and not letting anyone use your body against your will, please think about that. She’s restoring her bodily rights by going through labor and delivery either way. Abortion is not just about restoring her bodily rights. It’s about making sure the child is dead.
[This article is a transcript of “Later abortion isn’t live birth” courtesy of volunteer Ben Tomlin. If you’re interested in volunteering to transcribe more of our content, please complete our volunteer survey.]
This video is also available on TikTok. (On Link)
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Even if people who never have abortions support it, they are guilty before God. Romans 1:32
She's 100% right about this. I remember asking someone I was debating with online the following question: if we could perfect a process wherein a fetus is removed even at the very early stages, and raised in an artificial womb, would you agree to replacing abortion with this option? If it were free? If there were no repercussions? If you just surrendered custody and it was gone? If it was painless? If it was quick?
And the answer was an overwhelming NO, because it would "upset" the woman to know that child was out there somewhere, alive. That was when I started thinking: This is not just about 'bodily autonomy.' This is about control over the off-spring.
Interesting they make this argument at just the time when the push is to decriminalize child murder (and I don’t mean abortion).
In fairness, it is mainly about shirking responsibility, and protecting the parent(s) from future pleas for emotional ties, involvement with siblings or extended family, and possible inheritance.
That said, abortion is barbaric and evil. Except in cases of rape or incest, it is a cheap and easy way to evade accountability for one's sexual carelessness and callousness; i.e. lust rather than love.
As for rape and incest, your solution sounds humane; even though securing good and lasting adoptions remains more difficult than many imagine.
Yes, I too suspect the "1" in the 11-1 Clancy jury decision is the only pro-lifer among them.
.
🔝🔝
“Later abortion isn’t live birth”. It’s murder, I can’t image the Creator looks favorably on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.