Doctor: Abortion is Unnecessary, There are other life-preserving options, even in life-and-health

I have been a pediatrician in Rapid City for 26 years now. During those 26 years it has been my job and privilege to attend the births of many infants whose pregnancies were complicated in various ways: prematurety, infections, toxemia, multiple births among many others. My job is to care for the infant and give him or her the best chance at a whole and satisfying life. Sadly medical technology and my own skills have not always been up to the task, but the intent was to give the baby the best care available.

I want to tell you from a medical perspective that it is very, very rare that a physician would need to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the child. There is almost always something that can be done for both. This has always been traditional obstetric practice. We now can do amazing things with fetal medicine. Diagnoses are being made earlier and earlier. Treatment interventions are being devised and implemented. Surgery is now being done on unborn babies while they are still in the womb, amazing. Why are all these incredible things being done? Because all life is precious and God given. All children deserve the life that God has planned for him in His infinite wisdom.

Our opponents in this campaign would have you belief that if the law banning abortions in South Dakota is upheld doctors will go to jail and women in South Dakota will be left with no health care. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Currently no South Dakota doctors do abortions; therefore no South Dakota doctors would be prosecuted under HB1215 when it is upheld. The only abortions done in South Dakota are done by 4 physicians from Minneapolis brought in to SF by Planned Parenthood. The bill also specifically protects physicians doing a legitimate medical procedure to save a woman’s life. It protects doctors doing a legitimate procedure where something goes wrong and a baby is inadvertently harmed. South Dakota physicians and South Dakota women have nothing to fear from this legislation.

The overwhelming number of abortions done in South Dakota and across our nation are done for expediency or convenience. They are done on perfectly healthy babies and perfectly healthy mothers. They are not done for rape, not done for incest, not done for fetal anomalies, and not done to save the life of the mother. They are done because a pregnant woman feels hopeless or helpless. We as a society and especially a Christian community need to seek out these women and be instruments of God’s grace and compassion.

I have in my practice now a 16 year old mother who was raped by her brother. So here we have in one case the two stumbling blocks that most people have with HB1215. She decided that the only innocent person in this unfortunate situation besides herself was her unborn child. What a brave decision for anyone to make, much less a traumatized 16 year old. I have great hope and faith that if a 16 year old can get it right so can the rest of South Dakotans.

The psychological literature is full of data indicating that abortion following a rape is more traumatic than the rape itself and leads to more long lasting emotional and psychological complications. We have interviewed many women who have told us their child has been the healing instrument from the trauma of the rape. And if it unfortunately happened to them again that they would make the same decision.

HB1215 does contain a specific provision for woman to receive emergency contraception following a sexual crime. We desire for them to receive complete and compassionate medical care and for them to receive justice. An abortion in theses situations is not compassionate and denies justice. An abortion in these situations causes long term harm for the mother and protects the rapist. Is this really what we want to do in South Dakota?

I have also over the years had the privilege of caring for many malformed, abnormal children whose lives were cut short or handicapped in human terms. Perfect in God’s plan, but not in our clouded viewpoint. NONE of the families that I have served, in these situations, have regretted their child’s life. They ALL celebrated and treasured something special in their child’s life, however brief. I have counted it a privilege by Gods grace to be involved with these families. I of course have some in my practice now. There are people who adopt children with special needs. I can think of several of them easily. In fact you will hear from one of these amazing persons soon. They are almost all Christian people who feel led by God to do this work, may God richly reward their faithfulness.

Surveys have shown that 80% of people agree that abortion is morally wrong; but, women in a crisis pregnancy don’t know where to turn or are frequently coerced. They are rejected by pro-life people for becoming pregnant and considering an abortion or having one, and not told the truth or had their feelings validated by the poor choice side. There have now been 45 to 50 million abortions done in our country. Therefore there are at least that many hurting women in our society. They are all someone’s daughter, mother, sister or aunt, sorority sister or best friend.

There are also an equal number of men who suffer in various ways. Perhaps they were the ones who coerced the abortion in the first place. If our countries population is around 300 million, think for a moment with me what a staggering toil this sin has extracted from our society. I have in the past pondered how many firemen, teachers, plumbers we have aborted over the years. How many priests and pastors, concert musicians and geniuses. How many ordinary working folks who comprise our society. I continue to ponder that from time to time.

But today I focus more of my attention on the millions of people who have been harmed psychologically by abortion. The lost wages and productivity. The depression and suicide. The child abuse and neglect. The substance abuse and addictions of all kinds. The lose of hope and happiness direction and purpose. The destruction of marriages and families. Oh what a burden our society carries for it’s sin. What an opportunity to be instruments of God’s healing grace. Please God let it start here in this state today. Let your grace and mercy go forth and heal our land. Whatever the results of the election may be. Abortion is not an unforgivable sin.

My pastor reminded me recently that Moses, David, and Paul all had something in common. They were each guilty of murder. Our Savior once had an encounter with a woman caught in the very act of adultery and deserving of stoning. Our savior did not condemn this woman for her sexual sin, in fact He specifically said I don’t condemn you, go and sin no more. I trust my brief comments have reassured you that even in complicated pregnancy cases there is something that can be medically done.

I believe this law protects the women and physicians of South Dakota. There is a provision in the bill to help victims of sexual crimes. The human costs in terms of suffering in our country are enormous .Several years ago I served in the army. There was a saying about the good soldier: The good soldier, the brave soldier was the one who when he heard the sounds of battle, he picked up his weapon and ran towards the sound. In the video you heard from such soldiers. Even though badly wounded they pickup their weapons and run towards the sound of battle.

We need an army of such soldiers as these. We need you. Martin Luther once said “If you are a Christian soldier, and if you are not were the battle is the hottest, you are a traitor to the cause”. I am a board member of VoteYesForLife.com, a coalition of people from all across South Dakota. We come from all the major political parties, from different denominations and walks of life. We are united in our desire to save babies and women from the harmful physical, emotional, and psychological effects of abortion. We desperately need your help.

We know this is God’s battle but He chooses to work thru His people. We need you to talk to your congregations, to preach God’s healing message of grace by which we all are saved. Those of us who are from the Reformed faith, all across the nation, will be fasting and praying on Sunday Nov. 5th . We need you to talk to friends, relatives, and neighbors. We need campaign volunteers. Listen…Listen…can you hear it? There is a battle raging for the hearts and minds of God’s people. Who among you will pickup your "weapons" and join us? Dr. Donald Oliver is a respected Rapid City pediatrician. He is also a board member of VoteYesForLife.com, and member of South Dakota Physicians for Life.

Once more I fused several of your posts. Please, don't chop it up again.

I am a woman. (Are you?)

No, I am not.

If abortion were not legal, many women who do not wish to be pregnant would take steps to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place

I agree. However, unless you are thinking in terms of downright abstinence (quite unrealistic these days), as I already pointed out, all birth control methods are riskier than using barrier methods and have an abortion if it fails. Thus, even if you are right (as I believe that you ARE right) about the less pregnancies, if abortion would not be available, using the various available birth control methods would still result a higher complication rate of those of the various birth control methods.

The average Jane Doe is more likely to become pregnant precisely because abortion on demand is legal.

I agree. Still the same item as above.

Obstetricians who have multiple death cases, won't practice very long.

Small solace to the (individual) grieving families.

Perhaps, but this doesn't belong to the heart of our discussion.

Might some women and teenage girls, who have this thought in the back of their mind, "If I get pregnant, I can always have an abortion,"

fit into your category of "putting too much trust in modern medicine"?

For example, teen age girls who consider abortion an option, might more carelessly get pregnant, then decide to bear the baby, then die from failure to seek medical care.

You repeating the exact same concept over several posts. The answer is still yes, you are right, but that's not the point.I am not debating (one way or another) the ethical and moral issues related to abortion. I am discussing nothing more than the strict medical aspect. In which abortion seems to be the lowest of all medical risks involved. It is not an opinion of mine, this is based strictly on statistics, numbers, facts. As a gynecologist, I don't perform abortions, so I am not even in the position of having to justify my own such activity.

My husband just pointed out that he thinks men would take more responsibility for birth control, if they knew abortion was not an easy "fix" for their "problem."

That's another reason why there would be fewer annual pregnancies, in the first place, if abortions-on-demand were not so easy to obtain.

Your husband is right. You are right too. I am not debating any of that for a moment, but unless you can achieve total abstinence in the case of "all involved", the medical risk would go higher, whether it is ordinary pregnancy, or any of the known methods of birth control.
----------------------------
And as for the pro-choice pro-life debate: both side took an unreasonable approach. The pro-choicers insist on the unquestionably horrible third (even the second) trimester abortions, pro-lifers on the other hand oppose ordinary birth control and keep repeating the today irrational mantra of "abstinence" as a "solution" to the problem. I am unable to support either side, based on their current stand. I CHOSE not to perform abortions for totally non-religious reasons, but nobody will be able to convince me, that abortion is unreasonable in a case, where the fetus is a totaly genetic screwup, having zero chance to survive after a full term birth. Yet, pro-lifers insist that even those cases shouldn't be aborted, and that is crazy. Nor can I identify with extreme cases-no abortion. For example, in 1985 a 12 years old girl was brought in by her father, near term pregnant. They admitted that daddy of the 12 years old girl was also the daddy of the baby to be born. Now, in this case abortion was of course too late, she had the baby two days later, but had this case been found out at 8 weeks gestation, according to the pro-lifers, this 12 years old girl should not have had an abortion. According to the pro-choicers, the very same 12 years old girl could have had a late term abortion one day before the obstetric delivery. That's crazy too.

Until both sides able to achieve some compromise, I can't support either side. I just do what I think is right, I don't perform abortions, but I gladly insert IUDs, despite that they knock out a ready to implant zygote. Please, don't even bother to tell me that "with that you do provide abortions".

Gabor

I CHOSE not to perform abortions for totally non-religious reasons

You are in good company.

It's ludicrous of folks to insist religion plays such a large role in stirring up opposition to abortion.

It's especially ludicrous for religious pro-aborts to say this. After all, religious pro-aborts are religious and, yet, support abortion. If their religion doesn't make them oppose abortion, why should religion be making others oppose abortion..

Plenty of religious people think abortion is fine. In the majority of churches you will find people who support liberalized abortion laws as well as people who oppose liberalized abortion laws.

When you think about it, religion most likely is not the real reason that so many people oppose abortion

Something beyond "religion" is obviously at play in the way people make up their minds about abortion.

I CHOSE not to perform abortions for totally non-religious reasons

You are in good company.

It's ludicrous of folks to insist religion plays such a large role in stirring up opposition to abortion.

It's especially ludicrous for religious pro-aborts to say this. After all, religious pro-aborts are religious and, yet, support abortion. If their religion doesn't make them oppose abortion, why should religion be making others oppose abortion..

Plenty of religious people think abortion is fine. In the majority of churches you will find people who support liberalized abortion laws as well as people who oppose liberalized abortion laws.

When you think about it, religion most likely is not the real reason that so many people oppose abortion

Something beyond "religion" is obviously at play in the way people make up their minds about abortion.

I think it is a kind of cycle effect. The religions resulted in many laws, societal rules,behavioral patterns. Yes, you are right, that many people today are opposing abortions, without being religious. But let's face it, the core of this issue is a religious insistence that "life begins at conception". Despite that no scientific forum on a respectable level ever stated that. Science doesn't claim to know when life begins. How could they? They don't even know what life is? How can anyone know when something begins without knowing specifically what it is? If that sentence wasn't in the Bible where Jesus refers to the fetus of a pregnant mother as "life" (or something along that line), I seriously doubt this would be such a hot issue.

We don't KNOW when life begins, since we don't know what life is. The meiosis and mitosis in single cell creatures (where there is really no such thing as "life begins") became complex on higher level creatures, but essentially it is the same concept. Why couldn't we call a sperm cell life, when it has a structure, it moves, it has a specific goal, it achieves it's goal, and all that based on living material?

Gabor

Why couldn't we call a sperm cell life, when it has a structure, it moves, it has a specific goal, it achieves it's goal, and all that based on living material?

You can call it life, if you want to.

But calling it "life" doesn't make it a human being or a person.

A human being will not be present without the sperm being combined with some other material or without the sperm being "tinkered with" in a lab.

In both of those cases, it will no longer be called a sperm, because scientists have known for years that there is a difference between a sperm and a human.

Like scientists, right-to-lifers are well aware of the difference..

Here's an irony....The people who want to confuse an ovum or a sperm with a human seem to be the people who are pro-abortion. Those are the same people who declare themselves more scientifically knowledgeable than pro-lifers.

Even the "great science expert " James Trefil got so confused that he wrote a NY Times Op-ed in which he said that, because parthenogenesis is possible, pro-life women who are menstruating should worry that they are having abortions.

Sometimes, during a discussion, the pro-abort "experts" can be their own worst enemies.

If that sentence wasn't in the Bible where Jesus refers to the fetus of a pregnant mother as "life" (or something along that line), I seriously doubt this would be such a hot issue.

I wonder.

It seems to me that the pro-abort crowd brought up the issue of religion, as a red herring, back in the 70's. They needed to say that people who were opposed to abortion were forcing their religious beliefs on others. In reality, back in the early 70's most people did not think abortion laws should be liberalized and for a good number of those people, abortion seemed as naturally wrong as murder.

Plenty of people who declare a belief in Jesus, read the Bible or attend Church, are pro-abortion.

Plenty of people who don't believe in Jesus are pro-life.

So it seems that, ultimately, something other than religious belief or something in addition to religious belief is at play in a person's decision regarding abortion.

For me it's logical to think a fellow human being is present from the moment of conception.

To me, people who think that the fetus is not a person one moment, but becomes a person at some "magical" moment are "unscientific." Pro-aborts need to lie, in order to support their illogic. They've lied since the days of Roe v. Wade.

You can call it life, if you want to.

But calling it "life" doesn't make it a human being or a person.

True, but what makes something a human being or a person? Let's face it, we just don't know. Different people set up different boundaries, but they are all artificial and none have irrefutable evidence supporting it. My favorite is the zygote. Is it really A PERSON? Or is some form of biological "unit" which eventually will become a person? Before you would quickly respond (I noticed that you too accept that theory), think of the concept of identical twins. The zygote can still split up and become two persons. Not only the zygote, but even the blastocyst, the zygote after many divisions can still split up into two persons. Therefore, even in the zygote there is a potential toward something else, other than one, single, defined, FINAL individual human being. Obviously it is less potential than an egg or a sperm (on their own), but still not ONE FINAL individual.

That's why I am saying that the issue is tricky at least and we claim to know more about it, than we really know about it.

Here's an irony....The people who want to confuse an ovum or a sperm with a human seem to be the people who are pro-abortion. Those are the same people who declare themselves more scientifically knowledgeable than pro-lifers.

Nobody is "more scientifically knowledgeable. The science knows so much about the issue, whatever is known is available to all. Neither side has a scientific upper hand. Yet, both claims one. That's why I am unable to support either side without reservations.

The reality? The reality is far too simple. There is a dispute, BECAUSE the lack of knowledge. If this would be a scientifically settled, obvious question, there could be no dispute. Nobody argues why an airplane can fly. Nobody argues why an automobile can go forward. Nobody debates why a lightbulb emits light. These are all settled scientific issues. Life isn't (or the beginning of thereof). That is why mankind is forced to decide on a societal level, and not on a scientific level. One believes this, the other believes that, and whichever gets to political power will try to coerce his/her belief on the entire society. That's where we are right now (and will be for quite a while).

Plenty of people who declare a belief in Jesus, read the Bible or attend Church, are pro-abortion.

Plenty of people who don't believe in Jesus are pro-life.

So it seems that, ultimately, something other than religious belief or something in addition to religious belief is at play in a person's decision regarding abortion.

I already accepted that statement. Yes, it is true. Doesn't mean a whole lot. Some people are vegetarians, because they feel bad about killing the cow, pig, chicken, etc. Some people don't even eat plants, only the fruit of plants. That is a weird (yet understandable) feature of some humans. It appears so horrible to kill in general. Yet, the entire living world is "built" on the concept that one living thing must destroy another one just to survive. Much as some humans want to "get out of this", they can't. They can pretend all they want, in order to survive, they must consume material originated from living creatures. So, society drew lines, this is what you can kill, this is what you can't. The lines are totally arbitrary, but typically drawn "somewhere around humans". Since the transition, the boundary are unavoidably hazy, hence the argument about abortion, for some other people argument about even killing a chicken. Funny, some vegetarians refuse to kill the cow, but kill the fish. Their dividing line is somewhere between the chicken and the fish (:-). Seriously, don't you see how artificial this whole thing is?

Killing humans also has a hazy boundary. Many pro-lifers have no problem (for example) to support wars, capital punishment, killing for self-defense. Don't get me wrong, I am not condemning those, only pointing out that it is an obvious contradiction (you can't kill the zygote, but you can kill an adult human under war conditions). The only way to try to justify this (and they do) is the question of "innocense". But what has that got to do with conceptual scientific knowledge of life itself? Nothing at all. It is just another societal level artificial judgement issue.

The pro-choicers are drawing their own boundaries somewhere else, that's all. They contradict themselves just as well. For them, it is okay to terminate the life of a seven month fetus, yet they are the one typically who don't want to kill the chicken. Weird, isn't it? They are the ones typically opposing capital punishment and wars. Yet they have no problem to rip the fetus out of the mother, tear it up and toss it to the trash. Weird, isn't it?

For me it's logical to think a fellow human being is present from the moment of conception.

Still, after you read the above (:-)? You drew the line there and it is fine with me. But don't think for a moment that your boundary is any better than any other boundary. They are all artificial. We don't know what life is, how can we possibly know when it begins for real?
------------------------------
Because of all of the above, if somebody would ask me to settle the abortion dispute, I would suggest that both sides should sit down and work out some compromise. Because NOBODY owns (knows) the truth about life. By the way, that's where religion sneaks back to the issue. I debated abortion with many people in the past and when I mentioned the word "compromise", the typical reaction was "God does not compromise".

Anyway, so much for today.

Gabor

"Because NOBODY owns (knows) the truth about life. Somebody's right." There is a dispute, BECAUSE the lack of knowledge. And there is a dispute, BECAUSE anti-lifers lie.

Now the conversation will fall apart. Instead of thinking, analyzing, you fell back to accusations. I don't like that at all. I don't think anybody lies in this subject. Lying means knowing the truth and telling something else. Why would anyone do that in this particular subject? Let's try to keep the spirit of the conversation as it was before.

We know, more than ever, even at the microscopic level, that people are people from the moment of conception.

No, we don't KNOW more than ever. All we know what we know, which is very little. I already wrote down, in quite a detail, that the conception is a rather artificially defined "start of life". The sperm already a "living thing of some kind" and so is the egg. I understand (and agree) that the unification of the DNA is a defining moment, but it is arbitrary. Arbitrary, because of the example I gave already about the mitosis and the meiosis, which simply got "displaced" on higher level life forms, but conceptually are the same, as those at the single cell creatures. Arbitrary, because the conception is not yet the absolute final moment of one individual human being (see my twinning example). You can't run away from these and suddenly start accusing anti-lifers of lying and that kind of a traditional pro-life mantra. Try to remain with the spirit of the conversation. Otherwise it will become just another pro-life pro-choice crap, which has been played out millions of times, our input is not needed there.

The old pro-abort lie that a fetus is just a blob of protoplasm is dismissed by almost everyone.

Even the best scientists have no clue, and I mean NO CLUE, how that magic zygote turns into a living being. They can see it happening, yet they don't know. What we all know however, that it happens exactly the same way single cell creatures multiply, by the division of the cells. Meiosis, mitosis, presto, two new cells. And so on. Allow me to repeat the identical twinning scenario, because it is never mentioned anywhere else (at least, I have not seen it).If the zygote would be one final individual, it couldn't turn into two final individuals. Therefore, even the zygote must have some "further potential", no fundamentally different from the sperm and the egg. The interesting part that the twinning division can occur up to many stages. That should give at least a pause to all those who insist that the zygote is the first step toward one final individual. The truth is: we don't know.

"what makes something a human being or a person?"

The right DNA.

That leads to the classic "appendix" argument. It also has the "right DNA". As well as the tonsils or any body parts which later gets removed from people. Which of course triggers the "but those are not conscious individuals". Which of course is true, but then, nor is the zygote a "conscious individual". Which leads to the next stage of the argument: does consciousness what defines an individual? Careful, because if you say yes, then pro-choicers are right, because up to a certain stage of development there is no consciousness (definitely not before the brain develops), but if you say no, then there goes the right DNA argument, since the appendix also has the right DNA.

I am not an anti-lifer, only I see the scientific basis for the dispute. If it all would be so obvious as either side states it, there would be no argument and it would be obvious. But it isn't. That's why I suggested the compromise, which kind of "freaked you out" and rushed at me with the classic pro-lifer attack.

Please understand, it is either that (compromise) or 1.5 million abortion a year. The society will never go back to the no artificial birth control, no abortion, stay virgin until you get married, then never cheat on your spouse until you both die scenario. It just not going to happen. That's why I suggested that pro-lifers would have a lot more standing on the abortion issue, if they would openly acknowledge ordinary birth control. This issue will never come down on scientific details whether the zygote is a final human life or not. It will come down over far more practical, societal level issues, like population control (see China). You earlier stated that this is not a religious issue. okay, but please tell me, if it is not, how come the typical pro-lifer also opposes birth control? On top of it, with totally erroneously based arguments, like "birth control pill is abortifacient". It isn't. It prevents ovulation. So are all other hormonal birth control methods. So, what gives?

Gabor

" I don't think anybody lies in this subject. Lying means knowing the truth and telling something else"

Hadn't you heard? Roe v Wade was based on lies about the circumstances in Roe's life.

Well, she lied. Either then, or now. Okay, so she did. That doesn't mean that "pro-choicers lie" in general.

The sperm already a "living thing of some kind" and so is the egg.

So are skin cells, or white blood cells.

Exactly. But you see, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that "BECAUSE the zygote is a living cell, it is a full human being", but at the same time the appendix is not. The only way around that, that the appendix is not intelligent tissue.
But nor is the zygote, it is only a potential intelligent tissue. And that's where the intelligence comes into the question, which is a pro-choice dogma. And we came a full circle (of inherent contradiction).

"I am not an anti-lifer, only I see the scientific basis for the dispute"

Me, too.
And I realize that it is unscientific to confuse living cells with living beings.

Exactly. So, don't confuse a single cell, called zygote with a living BEING. At most, it is a potential living being (yes, I know, I acknowledge that). But then, so is the sperm and the egg. You likened it with the skin cells and the white blood cells. I agreed, but the skin cells will never turn into a human being. So, the potentiality is no longer present,while it is present in the sperm and the egg. But then, the zygote is not the beginning of life. It is either even before that, or in my humble opinion, there is no such thing as beginning of life, it is continuous. Just as in the single cell beings. Human, meiosis, sperm or egg, conception/mitosis, zygote, human and the cycle continues forever.

"That's why I suggested the compromise,"

Compromise?
As in "split the baby in half" -- like King Solomon's (faked) compromise.
As in "decimate" -- like a Roman general ordering the killing of only one out of ten of the troops?
We don't usually make compromises like that in the modern world.
We might do "triage" but we don't deliberately kill.

Yes we do. Capital punishment, wars, military, police, justifiable homicide, self-defense, etc. And as I said, it is either compromise, or as you mentioned it, the modern world will NOT go back to the morals of the 17th century. Whether it was right or wrong, it is immaterial, the modern world will not go back. So, it is either 1.5 million abortion a year (in USA), or perhaps 1/10th of that (or even less).It will never turn into zero. Unless of course somebody invents the perfect birth control. Speaking of which,I find it "slightly suspicious" that I mentioned birth control twice, and you didn't react at all.

Gabor

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.