‘Abortion will end in America’ Eduardo Verastegui tells pro-lifers

LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/2/12 | Peter Baklinski

[wagglebee]

The movie star was inspired to open a pro-life medical centre, what he called an “oasis of life” in a “desert of death.” Many people pointed out to him all the difficulties, especially raising the necessary funds, but Verastegui was not deterred. The culture of death is “not afraid to do big things, why are we afraid to do big things?” he asked.

God Bless him for all he does!

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Jacquerie]

Thinking of the major legislation that put Wilsonian/FDR socialism into effect these past 90 years.
16th & 17th Amendments.
Progressive income taxes.
Social Security.
Commerce Clause abuse.
Medicare/Medicaid.
Welfare.
Obamacare.

All of these originated from the people via their representatives/Senators and President. Judges affirmed, except in the case of amendments, horrible laws that were at least Constitutionally enacted.

Abortion is different. No Congress passed a bill to establish abortion as legal across our nation. There was no such law in 1973 and there isn’t one now.

Abortion, unlike the other outrages, is pure, 100% judge made “law” and as such is no law at all.

[WILLIALAL]

If you haven’t had a chance to see him in the movie Bella, you really need to give it a viewing.
Its hard hitting in some respects, but in the end it is one of the most inspiring and uplifting movies I have seen.
It is anti abortion, without being in your face or too preachy. It just lets the events of the movie play on your heart and your mind.
Do yourself a favor and rent it or get it on Netflix, well worth it.

[healy61]

He is an Abolitionist. An excellent term.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

I do not think abortion will be ending in this country anytime soon.

[Colofornian]

I do not think abortion will be ending in this country anytime soon.

Headline: ‘Abortion will end in America’ Eduardo Verastegui tells pro-lifers

(Either that or abortion will aid bringing an end to America)

God may see to it that wind up in solidarity with the pre-born -- one way -- or the hard way!

[wagglebee]

I do not think abortion will be ending in this country anytime soon.

That's EXACTLY what many Whigs said about slavery 160 years ago!

Thankfully, conservatives didn't listen to them.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Abortion is one of the four sins that cry out to God for vengeance.

Either we put a stop to it, or God will.

It would be easier on us if we did it ourselves.

Very soon.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

I read the headline. I’m just saying that it does not look as though abortion will be ending in this country anytime soon.

He is suggesting that it’ll end here,isn’t he?

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

Before anyone gets all wound up and goes off on me,I am not saying I want children to be aborted. What I am saying is that,with the way things are going,it won’t end because people are going to have promiscuous,free-wheelin’ sex and use abortion as a form of birth control.

I am going to say this at my own peril,but there may be extreme cases where abortion is necessary. Notice the words ‘extreme’ and ‘necessary’. No, I am not a doctor,but there may be major health issues with the mother and/or the baby. I’m not talking partial-birth abortion,so don’t get the idea that I am advocating murder.

Again,notice the word ‘major’.

You guys can flame away but I know where I stand,as does G-d.

[little jeremiah]

...but there may be major health issues with the mother and/or the baby.

So you're okay with babies being aborted if it looks as though they will have major health issues? Downs? Spina bifida? Blindness? Cleft palate? Where's the line?

In other words, you're pro-abortion, that's very disheartening, I did not think you were pro-abortion. If you were to ask adults or people of any age who have "major health issues" if they wish they had been killed before birth, what kinds of answers do you think you will get?

[wagglebee]

What I am saying is that,with the way things are going,it won’t end because people are going to have promiscuous,free-wheelin’ sex and use abortion as a form of birth control.

Yeah I know, and slavery wasn't going to end either -- but CONSERVATIVES decided to end it.

I am going to say this at my own peril,but there may be extreme cases where abortion is necessary.

"Safe and legal and rare"?

No, I am not a doctor,but there may be major health issues with the mother and/or the baby.

Who decides? What's a "major" issue? In China the wrong chromosome is a "major" issue.

NOBODY has EVER suggested that a woman be denied life-saving medical treatment.

[Colofornian]

I wasn't disagreeing w/you...just piggybacking...and yes, he seems to suggest it'll end (perhaps sooner vs. later).

Bottom line, abortion is murder; and murder itself won't "end" until Jesus returns...or sets some kind of a Millennial world in place.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

Look,I’m not pro-abortion but as a Jew my views will be different than those of a Christian.

Before anyone decides to rip me apart like a pit-bull, there are extenuating circumstances and the Torah does not advocate abortion except in very special,EXTREME cases.

Cleft palate? What does that have to do with severe mental retardation? I mean the type in which the person barely knows they are alive? Being strapped into a chair,babbling and drooling is no way to live. It’s not merciful.

Your view and my view will be very different. Jews and Christians don’t see eye-to-eye on this topic.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

"...there may be extreme cases where abortion is necessary. Notice the words ‘extreme’ and ‘necessary’. No, I am not a doctor,but there may be major health issues with the mother and/or the baby.

Actually, no, there are not cases, even extreme cases, "where abortion is necessary." I am a doctor. I'm just a foot surgeon, but I am "a doctor" and I've studied this argument.

Here is a decent response:

Are There Rare Cases
When an Abortion Is Justified?

Official position statement of the
Association of Pro-Life Physicians

What about in cases of...

Rape and incest?
Severe fetal deformity?
The health of the mother?
The life of the mother?

One can rarely engage in a discussion over abortion without one of the rare cases being brought up to justify abortion:

“What if the woman is raped?”
“What if a thirteen-year old conceives through incest?”
“What if the fetus is deformed and unlikely to survive anyway?”
“What if the mother’s health is at risk?”
“What if the mother’s life is threatened by her pregnancy?”

We would be remiss to deny the emotional sway of these rare scenarios that would pull at the heart-strings of any compassionate physician. We grieve with our patients who endure such tragedies in life, and want to provide the best healthcare possible to them. But do these dire circumstances justify an abortion?

It is easy to prove that these objections to the pro-life ethic are insincere. What if someone brought up these arguments to justify the killing of an infant: “The baby was conceived through rape” - “The infant is deformed and mentally handicapped” - “The mother’s health is suffering as a result of her baby.” Would anyone who endorses abortion in the womb openly justify the killing of an infant using these excuses? No, they would not. This proves that these objections are insincere and that the heart of the matter is whether the fetus is a living human. If it could be proven that the human fetus is just as alive and just as human as the infant, then these objections would not justify aborting a fetus any more than an infant. (For a thorough scientific argument proving that life begins at conception, please see the article on our website or the APP tract “When Does Human Life Begin?”)

We must respond to all tragic circumstances of pregnancy from the unshakeable foundation of two indisputable premises: human life begins at conception, and it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The unborn child’s right to life and liberty is given by his or her Creator, not by his or her parents or by the state. The right to life is inalienable: that is, not to be trespassed upon by another. In tragic circumstances such as rape or incest, we want to care for both the mother and her unborn baby. We want to relieve the suffering of the mother and her unborn baby. It is never right to intentionally kill an innocent person, even if it does relieve another’s emotional or physical suffering. It’s not up to a vote, and our obligation to submit unto divine judgments does not sway with our circumstances.

We should not kill an unborn baby to alleviate the suffering of the mother any more than we should kill her infant to alleviate her suffering. Neither should we commit an abortion of a malformed fetus in order to prevent his or her suffering later in life. Being handicapped is not a capital crime. The intentional destruction of health is not compassionate and it is not healthcare, it is assault. We must not be swayed from our pro-life ethic by emotional appeals that admittedly swell our eyes with tears. Truth and compassion prevent us from this fatal compromise.

We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. Politicians who herald the title “pro-life” on the campaign trail frequently tout this health exception, as well as exceptions for rape and incest, as pragmatic compromises that will not offend political moderates and not alienate the pro-life community. We do not consider this compromise consistent with pro-life Hippocratic principles at all. To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered “pro-life” at all. A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying!

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.

Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.

We are convinced that much of the pressure physicians place upon ailing women to get a therapeutic abortion is due to fear of malpractice suits. Two female patients have reported to me that physicians unduly pressured them into getting an abortion because their contraception failed and they conceived at the same time that they were taking a medication that could be very injurious to an unborn child. The motive for prescribing an abortion in such cases is not compassion, but completely selfish. The potential of a malformed or mentally retarded child does not ever justify killing the child, malpractice threats notwithstanding. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, even if you are going to get sued if you let them live.

And note the quote from Alan Guttmacher himself, former Planned Parenthood president, at the end of this excerpt:

Is abortion ever medically necessary?

Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life.

It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother-such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent death-are considered indirect abortions.

They are justified under a concept called the "principle of double effect." Under this principle, the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified by the necessity of saving the mother's life.

Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not considered abortion.

Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.

-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president

[little jeremiah]

I’m a Hindu and the Vedic scriptures are adamantly against the killing of any unborn baby. The standard of “thou shalt not kill” is s universal law of God and not subject to sectarian squabbling.

BTW babies have been killed before birth because of cleft palate. To some people, a severe cleft palate is a “major health issue”, as well as Downs syndrome, and many other health conditions that render a baby supposedly “less than perfect”.

BTW many elderly people drool or are very forgetful or have severe Alzheimers. Should they also be killed, since that is “no way to live” according to many people (apparently you)?

Look at it this way - animals run away when they know they are going to be killed; even the lowest life forms such as bacteria avoid conditions or chemicals that are harmful to their existence. Plants grow to be in the sunlight. All those creatures “know” that they are alive and avoid that which harms or kills them.

Yet you think a mentally retarded person “barely knows they are alive” and therefore deserve to have been killed? Think deeper, please.

[xzins]

I am going to say this at my own peril,but there may be extreme cases where abortion is necessary.

I disagree.

Abortion is never necessary. Abortion is the intentional killing of a baby.

There is no reason there cannot be a "birth" even at the earliest of stages and a placing of that baby in some kind of artificial or natural womb that will give it a chance to survive.

Will it fail a lot of times? Probably. But that would be an effort to save and not an effort to kill.

And who's to say that processes wouldn't eventually be found to make it effectual.

But, intentionally killing is what they did to Terry Schiavo when they could have made a decision to allow spoon and bottle feeding by the family. Would it have worked? Who knows? But that is the ISSUE isn't it?

Are we striving to save a life or are we simply killing a life and saying "That's much easier."?

[DNA.2012]

Eduardo is a great person.