Foreceps.
Posted on 01/06/2013 1:32:20 PM PST by NYer
They’re threatened by informed consent. They’re traumatized by the limp body parts they look at every day. They’re torn by the contradiction that they became doctors to preserve life but use their profession to end it. Here are some eye-opening confessions from current and former abortionists.
They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion. –Dr. Randall, former abortionist
Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I was trained to conserve life, and here I am destroying it. -Dr. Benjamin Kalish, abortionist
You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular… she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby… All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s to all intents and purposes, the death trauma… somebody has to do it, and unfortunately we are the executioners in this instance[.] -Dr. Szenes, abortionist
Telling those women their fetuses feel pain is heaping torment upon torment. These women have real pain. They did not come to this decision easily. Creating another barrier for them to get the medical care they need is really unfair. –Abortionist Dave Turok
Foreceps.
This is why I hate overuse of forceps – things tear. There are only two kinds of doctors who have never perforated a uterus, those that lie and those who don’t do abortions. –Anonymous Abortionist
I got to where I couldn’t stand to look at the little bodies anymore. -Dr. Beverly McMillan, former abortionist
I think in many ways I’ve been lucky to have been part of this. If I hadn’t gotten involved, I would have gone through life probably being perfectly satisfied to go to the medical society parties and it would have been very, very dull. I would have been bored silly. -Dr. Jane Hodgson, late abortionist
Sorrow, quite apart from the sense of shame, is exhibited in some way by virtually every woman for whom I performed an abortion, and that’s 20,000 as of 1995. The sorrow is revealed by the fact that most women cry at some point during the experience… The grieving process may last from several days to several years… Grief is sometimes delayed… The grief may lie sublimated and dormant for years. -Dr. Susan Poppema, abortionist
If I see a case…after twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there…On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is “who owns this child?” It’s got to be the mother. -Dr. James MacMahon, abortionist
We know that it’s killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances. -Dr. Neville Sender, abortionist
That's absurd and demonic. "Putting the abortionist in the position of committing abortions"??? Really? That's straight out of Genesis. "It's her fault!"
How 'bout the recipient of a Medical Doctor degree tell the woman "No. Abortion is murder. I DON'T DO THAT!"
“Thus, even though they may not have wanted the child, it was still a planned pregnancy.”
Which is why Roe only came about after the Lambeth conference, and not before.
May I ask how do you define contraception? What things count?
That's absurd and demonic. "Putting the abortionist in the position of committing abortions"??? Really? That's straight out of Genesis. "It's her fault!"
How 'bout the recipient of a Medical Doctor degree tell the woman "No. Abortion is murder. I DON'T DO THAT!"
Perhaps I wasn't clear, so I will clarify: the bit about being put into the position of having to commit abortions was paraphrased from an abortionist's own words. Other abortionists expressed the sentiment that they didn't like what they were doing, but since women keep getting pregnant with "unwanted" children, if they didn't do the abortions, someone else would.
I see quite a bit of cognitive dissonance there. On the one hand, a number of abortionists seemed filled with self-loathing and disgust for their clients, but on the other hand, they aggressively market abortion. I honestly do not think they are sane. Any ethical physician, of course, stays far away from the sordid abortion industry.
The stat was from Guttmacher institute. They used to have their own "medical journal" where they would publish results of their "research." If the number is now 54% claim to have been using contraception, I doubt that it reflects a real change in contraceptive use. Most likely, it represents a higher number making that claim.
Abortion mills do not openly discourage contraceptive use; their discouragement is far more subtle. I'll use the example of a Planned Parenthood representative who came to my high school--this took place in the 1970s, but I have no reason to think the advertising pitch has significantly changed. It was a four-part approach.
One part is to scoff at the idea that a growing fetus is alive, to give the impression that believing life exists in the womb is equivalent to believing in the Easter bunny. The purpose of this part is clear: selling abortion becomes significantly more difficult if actual facts about the unborn child were discussed.
The next two parts go hand-in-hand. First, the unreliability of contraceptives is stressed. That is meant to give the impression that it's not worth bothering with them. Second, the danger of contraceptives is discussed in great detail, effectively exaggerating the perception of risk involved. So the recipients of this contraceptive "information" walk away believing that contraceptives don't prevent pregnancy, and they could kill you.
The last part was to stress how safe abortion is, and even claim health benefits from having late-term abortions.
A few other lies were tied in with this discouragement of contraceptive use. What was clear was that this woman was hard-selling abortion. Well, it wasn't clear at the time, but with maturity came insight into what was really going on there.
Your thoughts on this are way off. How do you explain widespread use of BCPs and IUDs yet we still abort over 1 million children in this country every year?? Contraception is not fail-safe and it is a lie. It’s the real war on women. Wake up.
I'm awake. The numbers of children being aborted have been dropping since the 90s. During the Obama administration, they've dropped even faster. The CDC attributed that to the bad economy: women can't afford to get pregnant, so they are actually using contraceptives more.
Also, another strong indication that abortion is a result of lack of contraceptive use is the wide disparity in abortion rates between different races. If these pregnancies were resulting from contraceptive failure, then the abortion rates would be the same regardless of race.
I genuinely do not understand why a self-proclaimed pro-lifer would want to discourage contraceptive use. Do you really expect women to remain virgins, or to only have physical relations with their husbands only when they actively want a baby? Doesn't that seem a bit unrealistic?
Just about any clinically tested method: the pill, IUD, condoms/spermicide foam, diaphragm/spermicide foam, the implants... I may be missing a couple of methods here, but there are a number to choose from. Of course, there are also the permanent methods.
I specifically do NOT include folk methods. I hate to say it, but the rhythm method is hardly any more effective than using nothing.
Years ago I had a discussion with my Dad about women not being property of their husbands (a man had killed another man having an affair with his wife, and then proceeded to beat the woman pretty severely). The discussion went along the lines of humans don’t own other humans.
Can you imagine, in today’s enlightened age, if a husband were allowed to kill his wife, as he owns her? Or parents allowed to kill their living children, as they own them? Seriously. But we justify aborting unborn children because the woman “owns” the child? Wow.
Oh, no, you were quite clear ... the abortionists you quoted/paraphrased are blaming the 'client' for 'forcing' them to commit the abortion. It's appalling.
I see quite a bit of cognitive dissonance there.
Yes, quite, and well put. The abortion industry seems to be filled with every possible species of hate.
Then you support abortifacients. Abortifacients aren’t contraceptives at all, because they don’t prevent conception - they cause an early term abortion.
Every method I mentioned prevents pregnancy. All but one prevent fertilization. The exception is the IUD, which prevents implantation. I think there is a *huge* difference between preventing implantation (of a blastocyst consisting of a few formless cells) and abortion (of an embryo containing all of its body parts, who can feel and maybe move, depending on how far developed it is).
They Never Told Us That Our Birth Control May be Killing Our Pre-Born Children
“Every method I mentioned prevents pregnancy.”
No, they do not. One of the functions of the pill is to harden the endometrium so that the embryo cannot implant into the wall of the uterus.
“I think there is a *huge* difference”
If you were to take that same embryo and implant her in another woman, she, would grow and develop just like any of us. This is how IVF works. They take that exact same embryo that you are aborting and implant her into the mother.
This is why the pill is an abortifacient.
“consisting of a few formless cells”
If this were so, we couldn’t confirm parentage. These ‘few formless cells’ have a genetic code distinct from the parents such that we could tell who the parents are just from the genetic code.
Actually... probably not. Most zygotes fail to implant. Of those that implant, about a third fail to grow and end up miscarrying. I've seen estimates where only about 10-25% of fertilized ova are actually capable of resulting in a newborn baby. With IVF, several blastocysts are placed into the uterus, with the hope that one will result in a pregnancy.
“consisting of a few formless cells”
If this were so, we couldn’t confirm parentage. These ‘few formless cells’ have a genetic code distinct from the parents such that we could tell who the parents are just from the genetic code.
I chose to use the word "formless" because it conveyed the idea I was trying to convey better than any other non-medical word. I couldn't call them "undifferentiated" because they actually have differentiated into the cells that will become the placenta and those that become the embryo by the time they implant. But they have not formed any structures, and any of those cells can become anything at that point.
Since I happen to have a life sciences Ph.D., I think I'm very aware of the nature of the pre-implantation blastocyst. True, it has a full individual complement of DNA. But cells scraped from my cheek would also have a full individual complement of DNA. It seems that every time I have blood drawn for a test, millions of cells, each with a full individual complement of DNA, perish. That's far more cells than that blastocyst contains. This is why I place more importance on the physical structures those cells form than I do on their DNA content. A blastocyst has no organs or nervous system. It is not aware, nor can it feel. Fast forward a few weeks--say, to the time when a woman might be suspecting pregnancy--and the physical characteristics of that blastocyst are completely different. It has all of the limbs and organs it will ever have. Its nervous system is rapidly developing, and even though it can't move yet, it probably feels. It is undeniably a distinct human being at that point (at 4-6 weeks after implantation).
As much as I try to understand the viewpoint against contraception, it is not something that makes any kind of logical sense. Legalistic and philosophical arguments are divorced from logic and reality; they can basically say anything anyone wants them to say. If one can use the idea that a fertilized ovum=embryo=fetus as a justification for abortion, then what's to prevent you from expanding that to =newborn=toddler=pre-teen=adolescent... and so on?
But by considering actual physical characteristics--not legalistic or philosophical mumbo-jumbo--and using objective scientific measures to determine whether the "products of conception" are capable of being aware and feeling, then there is a clear rationale for restricting abortion while supporting contraceptive use. From a purely logical standpoint, one *must* support contraception if one is genuinely pro-life, because 1) women who conscientiously use contraceptives rarely get pregnant, and 2) the vast majority of abortions are committed because the abortion client didn't bother with contraceptives. If you don't believe part 2), then I suggest reading the accounts of abortion clients, or talking to them. They often describe the circumstances of getting pregnant, and sometimes offer excuses to rationalize terminating the baby, but a glaring and very telling omission from those accounts is a mention of any attempt to avoid pregnancy. In many of those accounts, they don't even offer excuses for killing the baby; clearly, abortion is their primary choice for birth control--they don't consider it a "back-up" method at all.
As I said previously in this thread, I fully understand the abortion industry's discouragement of contraceptive use. Those people have no empathy, no conscience, and are driven by pure greed. But so-called pro-lifers who discourage contraceptive use make no sense.
“Since I happen to have a life sciences Ph.D.,”
“fertilized ova”
Which is the zygote. Egg and sperm cease to exist at fertilization.
“Most zygotes fail to implant”
No zygotes implant. Not a single one. Embryos implant. Embryos are frozen from IVF and kept on storage for later.
If you’ve got a life science PHd then you should be using the correct terminology.
“I chose to use the word “formless” because it conveyed the idea I was trying to convey”
Hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? No. Which is the problem. The idea that you are trying to convey is wrong. There is a continuity of existence from the zygote all the way to the newborn. This is why we can sue men for child support. We are relying on this basic assumption that the child conceived in the womb, is the same child outside of the womb.
“But cells scraped from my cheek would also have a full individual complement of DNA.”
But that’s not what I said. I said the zygote has an individual distinct complement of DNA - DNA distinct from the father and mother. If they did not - then IVF would not work. Do the cells on your cheek have a distinct complement of DNA? No. But the zygote does. The same set of DNA as the embryo, as the fetus, and as the newborn. The exact same.
“This is why I place more importance on the physical structures”
And it’s also why you are wrong. There is continuity of existence. There has to be because otherwise it makes no sense to call anyone a father because they aren’t fathering anything. Unless of course you believe that fatherhood is simply whomever the mother chooses.
“It is not aware, nor can it feel.”
So why are these things important? Is someone who is comatose - are they aware? Does that change who they are as a person? Someone under anaesthetia? No. And the same applies here. Just because at this stage of development people are not aware, doesn’t change the fact that they will become aware, and that they possess the capacity to become aware. A bucket is a bucket even if it’s not full.
“It is undeniably a distinct human being at that point (at 4-6 weeks after implantation).”
In which exactly nothing has changed- all this capacity was there before. It’s the same person - then as now.
If you’ve got a life science PHd then you should be using the correct terminology.
If you're going to get hung up on terminology, then perhaps I should point out that those of us in the life sciences are fairly flexible about terminology. Specific words are not important, as long as we use them the way we define them. I think it's pretty clear what I mean when I use the term "fertilized ovum" (which is perfectly correct) as opposed to zygote or blastocyst. Also, the word "embryo" is fairly non-specific; it is applicable at any time until birth.
Hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? No. Which is the problem. The idea that you are trying to convey is wrong. There is a continuity of existence from the zygote all the way to the newborn. This is why we can sue men for child support. We are relying on this basic assumption that the child conceived in the womb, is the same child outside of the womb.
No offense, but your understanding of biology is quite basic. As I said, I have a very good understanding of reproduction--it was necessary information for my PhD research. It's almost a no-brainer that the child has both father's and mother's DNA; I am not sure what your point is in bringing it up. Nor why you feel it necessary to point out that the child in the womb is the same child outside of the womb after birth.
The idea that I am trying to convey may not be all that apparent to someone without my training. Embryonic/fetal development is a process, starting with the formless, undifferentiated fertilized ovum, which, over a period of time, gains in complexity and function, until it reaches its full development at about 25 years of age. At the very beginning of that process, right after fertilization, there is little chance that that particular product of conception has the ability to grow into a fully mature human being. Not counting abortion, fewer than 25%--possibly as few as 10%--of fertilized ova will ever make it to birth. I honestly can't get worked up about something that isn't even likely to develop into a baby.
Now I will try to convey my major point again. A blastocyst contains two kinds of cells--those that will form the placenta, and those that will form the embryo. Beyond that, those cells are completely undifferentiated. That is, they do not form any kind of limbs or organs. That blastocyst has no awareness. It really is just a clump of cells, similar to cells that might be removed during a biopsy or a blood draw. As far as I know, no one is particular concerned about the cells in biopsy samples, either--even though they, too, have a full set of human DNA and could even be manipulated to form an embryo. In order for that embryo to gain awareness, it must start to develop a nervous system. That happens at around 3 weeks after fertilization. At that point, it is no longer an unaware mass of cells. It has awareness, it can sense its surroundings. Probably in a very rudimentary manner at first, but awareness increases over time. When it is aware, it is completely immoral to take its life.
As for my own personal view, I consider implantation the point at where life should be protected. Where a fertilized ovum has little chance of survival, an implanted embryo has about a 2/3 chance of surviving.
About continuity: notice that I never mention the "beginning" of life. There is no such thing. Sperms are alive, ova are alive, and when they fuse, the fertilized ova are alive.
So why are these things important? Is someone who is comatose - are they aware? Does that change who they are as a person? Someone under anaesthetia? No. And the same applies here. Just because at this stage of development people are not aware, doesn’t change the fact that they will become aware, and that they possess the capacity to become aware. A bucket is a bucket even if it’s not full.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that someone who is comatose or anaesthetized still has a functioning nervous system. They sense their surroundings even if they don't remember it when they wake up. Since an early embryo has no nervous system, there is no place for awareness to be. It is as aware as the human cells that I grow in lab for experiments (which is to say, not at all aware). I guess, in your world, I'm a murderer several billion times over for all of the human cells I've killed. They also had unique DNA...
Contraception isn't killing. Nor is abortion a "necessary failsafe" for contraception. Although genuine contraceptive failure is fairly rare, a woman does have options other than abortion. Your attempt to philosophically equate the prevention of life with destroying life makes absolutely no sense to my logical mind.
Do you really think a woman having a physical relationship with her husband is promiscuous? Do you really believe that married couples should not have physical relationships unless they are specifically trying to conceive? Maybe you manage to achieve that in your marriage, but you must try to understand that a platonic marriage is not workable for most couples.
BTW, abortion use skyrocketed only after abortion was legalized. Contraception was around for a long time before that.
“those of us in the life sciences are fairly flexible about terminology.”
Not true at all. Different stages of development are well-defined. Life sciences are very broad - the scientists that focus on human development and embryology have specific terms for specific stages. Just because you have a PhD, in say, Botany, doesn’t say anything about this particular discipline. We’d be best to talk about development in the womb with embryologist.
“Specific words are not important, as long as we use them the way we define them.”
Yes, words are important, because words have specific scientific definitions attached to them. This is like saying to a layperson that “it doesn’t matter whether it’s a class or a family”, when it’s very important to cladistics. The same thing here. Perhaps you believe it’s unimportant - but to the people who actually study this stuff, it is important.
“I think it’s pretty clear what I mean when I use the term “fertilized ovum” (which is perfectly correct)”
It is incorrect, because sperm and egg cease to exist at fertilization. There is no ovum anymore. There is a zygote and this is a very important point to understand. Not getting this point leads to other errors, which you’ve already demonstrated.
“Also, the word “embryo” is fairly non-specific; it is applicable at any time until birth.”
Also untrue. I suggest you consult a textbook on Embryology.
“It’s almost a no-brainer that the child has both father’s and mother’s DNA”
The important part is that the child existence begins when these combine - at fertilization.
“The idea that I am trying to convey may not be all that apparent to someone without my training.”
We’ve already established that your familiarity with this topic is equivalent to laypeople.
“Embryonic/fetal development is a process, starting with the formless, undifferentiated fertilized ovum”
Again, a fertilized ovum does not exist. When fertilized, sperm and egg combine to form the zygote, a single cell with a distinct genetic code formed from the combination of sperm and egg.
“At the very beginning of that process, right after fertilization, there is little chance that that particular product of conception”
Product of conception? This is a child. You’ve already stated that the child’s existence begins at fertilization.
“I honestly can’t get worked up about something that isn’t even likely to develop into a baby.”
She is already a child and a baby at fertilization onwards. This is the bright line and where development begins. She does not become a baby, she already is a baby. Every single child begins their life at this stage of their development - you were a zygote, you were an embryo.
“That blastocyst has no awareness.”
And? Your point being? The blastocyst has the same genetic code as the subsequent embryo, does it not? As the subsequent fetus and the subsequent infant. Same genetic code, same person.
“It really is just a clump of cells”
It? When do children acquire their sex?
“As far as I know, no one is particular concerned about the cells in biopsy samples”
Simple cell biology would demonstrate to you why these things are not the same. The DNA of the blastocyst is not the same as the DNA of the cells taken from you in a biopsy. The cells in the biopsy are your cells. The cells of he blastocyst, the cells of the child - not the mother and the father. We can identify this through genetic testing.
If in fact, this were the case that these cells were the same - sexual reproduction would not work.
“have a full set of human DNA and could even be manipulated to form an embryo.”
Umm, no, they cannot. You are gravely mistaken.
“When it is aware, it is completely immoral to take its life.”
So if I knock someone out it’s ok for me to kill them afterwards because they are no longer aware?
“I consider implantation the point at where life should be protected.”
The problem is that genetically, nothing changes at implantation. Implantation is simply a change in place, not a change in the substance of the embryo. The embryo remains the same in substance prior to implantation and subsequent to implantation. It’s the same embryo.
This is why IVF works - you can ensure that the embryo is fertilized by the father and the mother, and that this same embryo implanted into the mother is the same child that is born of the mother later on.
“There is no such thing. Sperms are alive, ova are alive, and when they fuse, the fertilized ova are alive.”
Yes, but the life of an individual person begins at fertilization - because at fertilization you have a distinct genetic code, distinct from either the mother or the father. Every person alive today, had their life begin here.
“still has a functioning nervous system.”
So you’ve shifted goal posts now.
“Since an early embryo has no nervous system, there is no place for awareness to be”
That doesn’t change the fact that left by herself, the embryo will develop a nervous system in due course.
“I guess, in your world, I’m a murderer several billion times over for all of the human cells I’ve killed. They also had unique DNA.”
Depends on what you do for a living. I’m sure you’re well aware that these are the same human beings, which is why you’ve rationalized by saying that implantation is the crucial point - because it allows you to do things like PIGD to select away defective embryos.
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.