What I want to know is, why did they KEEP the aborted fetuses? And other musings on Abortion.

If you keep up with the news with any sort of regularity, then you have likely heard the story about Dr. Steven Brigham and Dr. Nicola Riley, the two doctors who have been arrested on multiple counts of murder for performing late term abortions in Maryland. The 35 aborted fetuses that were found in a freezer  (Yeah, I’m pretty sure that is not kosher disposal technique so what the hell?) at their clinic have been examined and, according to some reports, at least 13 of the fetuses had reached viability and one of them was at about 36 weeks. Yeah, do that math for me. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine the sort of cruelness could be in the heart and mind of a mother, who would abort her child in the 9th month, mere weeks before the child would be born naturally (not the mention the fact that a C-section or induced labor could have easily been used) and given up for adoption. I cannot imagine the sort of unethical doctor who would willingly perform that abortion either. It boggles the mind.

All in all it’s not the most complicated of stories, though liberals will endeavor to make it so…for some reason.  Oh they cry about women’s rights, but the fact that someone wants to do something and feels it’s the right thing for them doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Psychopathic serial killers want to kill people and feels it’s the right thing for them to do, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prosecute them for murder.

So if this is such a simple story, why am I blogging about it?

First, because a friend posted the link to one of the stories and asked what her followers opinions on it were.

Second, because it opened the door for me to explain my ability to be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time.

I have the maternal instinct in spades and having a child and raising it is something that I feel will be one of the most rewarding parts of my life. I love babies, I love children,…I love teenagers slightly less, but I’m hoping I’ll be able to raise my child to be a less obnoxious teen than others. This is probably an empty hope, but it still springs eternal.

However I also understand science and I understand that, before a certain point, a fetus is not viable and is only surviving by, essentially, feeding off the energy of the mother. I also can understand that, during that period of the first 12 to 15 weeks, a person may decide, for various reasons, to not bring that child into the world.

I don’t support it, but I understand it. As always, I stand for individual liberty, even when that liberty allows people to do things that I wish they would rather not.

However, restrictions are a necessary part of life. Individual liberty only goes so far and we can’t allow people to run around, doing any thing they want, all the time, regardless of who they hurt. That way lies anarchy and most people would agree that anarchy is bad.

That is why we have drawn the, rather fuzzy, line of viability of fetus vs. non-viability.

The definition of viability is as follows.

Capable of living; especially: having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb.

- Websters

Of course viability isn’t a black and white issue.

The later a baby is born, the more likely he is to survive. Almost 30 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of pregnancy survive, while about 50 to 60 percent of babies born at 24 weeks, about 75 percent born at 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 27 to 28 weeks, survive (3,4,5).

- March of Dimes

Still, a 30% chance is quite significant and leaves a chance for adoption and life for that child, even if the mother in question does not want to (or cannot, for some reason) raise the child herself.

Abortion at that point is, in my opinion, murder. As far as science is concerned, the fetus is a viable human and killing  a human in cold blood is murder.

What Brigham and Riley were doing was murder and they should be prosecuted as such. Late-term and partial birth abortion are simply not ethical and it would, quite honestly, take a sociopath of extreme caliber to believe that they were. The absolute only time I can see an even slightly ethical need for either would be if the only possible way to save the mother’s life and even then the decision must be made with utmost care and thought. To my, admittedly limited, knowledge of medicine, I do not know of any situation in which a partial birth or late-term abortion would be less dangerous to the mother.

Now, as for early term abortion. While I support individual liberty of the mother, I also have a personal opinion on the topic. The only reasonable excuse for an abortion, the only one that doesn’t show an inordinate amount of callousness and selfishness on the part of the woman, is when the child is the product of rape or incest, the health of the mother is endangered, or the child will suffer from a disorder that will make their life, ultimately, short and painful or long and torturous. The concept of an abortion because birth control failed, or no birth control was used, is simply heinous to my own morals and the ethical and moral codes of many.

There, I feel better for having explained my views on the subject. Feel free to share your views in the comments.

27 Comments

  1. I have three children and three grandchildren and love every one of them. I don’t understand how anyone, doctors included, could crush the life out of a little baby. Abortion is my voting litmus test. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate, for any office, who was not pro life. Here’s a few things that I think on the subject.
    *I don’t believe clinics should be bombed, abortionists should be assassinated. That’s not the way the battle will be won. But, I’m not particularly horrified about the abortion of George Tiller. He killed defenseless human beings, so long, see ya, wouldn’t want to be ya.
    *I vote the way I do for those who are in the womb and cannot vote for themselves. Clairvoyant? No, but, I have to assume that if the babies could vote, they would opt not to be partially delivered and have their brains sucked out with their heads in the birth canal.
    *I don’t care what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says, it’s a baby. No matter how old or young. No matter how many grams or centimeters. Their opinion does not have validity just because they are who they are and believe themselves to be relevant.
    *There’s a hell of a difference between abortion and the death penalty. If people can’t figure that out, they’re too stupid to vote or even have an opinion for that matter.
    *The crushing, suctioning of the brain, boiling in saline, dismemberment,etc. has been “normalized” by society over the last few decades. What in the hell is the difference between Brigham and Riley and the Philistines in the Bible who used to throw toddlers into pits filled with starving wild dogs for entertainment?
    *Liberalism is going to be the death of this country. “Progressive” is a totally asinine label to describe these people.
    *Planned Parenthood is NOT a benign, helpful entity that is interested in helping women. It’s a business that is interested in making money and murdering little babies. Margaret Sanger, founder, started Planned Parenthood to decrease the population of blacks and Hispanics. Look it up.
    **Just to supply those out there who will read and deride this with a little ammo, I believe Jesus is coming back. Any time now. When he gets here, he ain’t gonna be happy with a lot of things going on in this world……

    • I agree with most of what you said, except for a few things. I’ll address those here.

      Tiller wasn’t a great guy, I still want the person who killed him to face the law and pay for what they did. The fact that Tiller was involved with doing abortions doesn’t give a person a free pass to murder him. If we all just went around murdering people we didn’t like, or who we thought were immoral, the world would be incredibly unsafe.

      I still feel that, scientifically, viability is a decent way to delineate between ‘fetus’ and ‘child’. Not, perhaps, the best way, but is the best way to not infringe on other people’s free will.

      Planned Parenthood isn’t benign, it also isn’t evil. It is neutral. Perhaps they do things that you disagree with, but they also provide poor women with birth control and healthcare that they could not get otherwise. As far as I have seen (and I have numerous friends who avail themselves of PP resources, either because of money issues or because they found a great doctor there and don’t want to find a new one) they do not actively go out into the community and grab pregnant women and try to get them to have an abortion, no matter what race they are. Abortions are, by and large, not the most common medical practice performed at Planned Parenthood clinics. That is actually a statistic you can look up. At the very least, Planned Parenthood does not do late-term or partial birth abortions (to my knowledge) and they have safe, clean, and legal staff.

      Almost everyone in the late 19th century and early 20th century was remarkably racist. The fact that Sanger had those beliefs does not mean that the current running of planned parenthood reflects those ideas.

      I am not a Christian, I am a Deist, which means I don’t believe that anyone is coming back anytime soon. However I believe that I am not happy with a lot of things going on in the world. However I also don’t think I have the right to tell everyone, everywhere, to live by my morals.

  2. I’m pretty much pro-life, and i dont care if people dont like it. I mean there’s a certain level of responsibility people need to take here, if they chose to have sex they know what that does, it is not a secret that it leads to baby’s. In regards to rape, i might be more flexible there but only if they are consistent, because a lot of the time people can somehow be against giving the death penalty to the rapist and for aborting a child at the same time, but honestly it’s not the childs fault and you can always just give it up for adoption (it might suck to have to be pregnant from a rapist but life is full of things that suck,unfortunately,does not mean you get to punish the innocent)

    • See, I support the death penalty for the rapist. People like that, along with pedophiles, don’t deserve a second chance.

      And I agree, life is full of things that suck, but as I said, this about individual liberty and as long as the fetus isn’t ‘viable’ I feel the mother has a lot more choice in that regards. Because, until it can survive independent of the womb, the fetus isn’t really what we consider a human.
      Now I would prefer any alternative to abortion, but just because I would prefer it doesn’t mean I can force others to prefer it. All that can be done is draw a line (and in the case of viability, the woman has an obscene amount of time to make up her mind) on when an abortion is legal and when it is not.

      One thing that pro-choice people have right is that having legal abortions is a better alternative to making them completely illegal. In my history class last semester we were discussing the fact that unsafe abortion practices have existed for centuries and if abortions are made illegal, people like Brigham and Riley will simply continue to do unsafe abortions, to the detriment of the woman’s health.

  3. I’m so pissed off about the 36 week baby they murdered. It turns my stomach every time I think about it. The mother has already gone through the hard part!! That’s it! 9 months. Have the baby, leave it at a hospital and continue to go eff up your life. But give that baby a fighting chance.
    It’s like people who kill themselves but kill their kids first. Like they are doing the children a favor. I just can’t believe this. I’m so glad they were charged with murder. omg…..!!!

  4. Stumbled on this blog a few minutes ago (I was looking for a quote from Atlas Shrugged). Thought I would comment on this topic though.

    I am a first year MD/MA Ethics student attending a Christian university, and I am pro choice. While I, as a physician, would not perform an abortion unless there was an extreme, medical rational, abortion is a choice. It is a woman’s determination of how best to live and manage her life. Also, while the issue of viability is an important medical topic, and while I believe that any life, from the moment of conception, is of supreme value, some women do not. If they are the ones who are pregnant, I do not have a right to impose my value system on them. I do not have the right to require them to sacrifice their values so as to bring a fetus to full term and deliver. I defend, as a basis of moral principle, a person’s right to choose. If after 1 day or 36 weeks, a woman chooses a course for her own body that ultimately leads to the abortion of a fetus, that is her right.

    This is not to say that once a fetus is disconnected from a mother, that a physician may do whatever he chooses. On the contrary, a physician has the ethical obligation to protect a life. If a mother chooses to abort, she is choosing to no longer serve the fetus. Once the fetus is apart from the mother, a physician must undertake whatever steps are necessary to preserve that life. The act of doing so will not impinge on the freedoms of the mother.

    Again, I reiterate, I am personally against abortion. My wife would not abort a fetus unless her life were in danger, and I would not have married her if she believed otherwise. I do not have the right however, to impose my morality on a woman. I do not have the right to protect a fetus who is not separate from the mother, at the cost of the freedom of the mother. I can stand outside of a clinic and hand out flyers to raise awareness. I can give to charities that do the same. I can stand in front of a camera and implore women to see the value in a child, to them, to potential adopters, and to society. But I cannot support law that, by force, limits the personal choice of a woman.

    Granting rights to a fetus, a potential life, at the cost of the mother is a perversion of individual rights. Simply because you disagree with someone’s value system does not give you the right to impose that system on another human being through the use of force.

    • You have mistaken my point I think.

      My position on abortion in this post is not based on morality. My personal morality is that no one should get an abortion except under the circumstances that the mother’s life in danger or the child will suffer from a genetic disorder or abnormality that will make their life…well….hell.

      The position I have point forward, using viability is a fairly simple legal matter. I posit that after a fetus becomes viable and would be able to survive outside the womb, premature or not, that the fetus has now become a human being. As a human being that child has certain rights, which, correct me if I’m wrong, are “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” in our country. They have the right not to be murdered. They have the right to live, even if that life is in a foster home or with adopted parents.

      To say that a woman has the right to terminate a child’s life at 36 weeks, simply because it is still in her womb, is simply outrageous! To what extent would you go with that? How far within the womb or birth canal does a baby have to be for it to still be in abortion territory? Or does the fetus not become a human being until the umbilical cord is cut? After all, if it’s still connected to the mother then it isn’t really a person is it? So it doesn’t have the same rights as the mother.

      Look, my morals say abortion is wrong, but the legality is a different matter and viability is an important factor in deciding when a fetus goes from fetus to a human being with rights in our country.

      • A fetus becomes a human being when it is no longer attached to the mother. There’s an important reason for that. The progression of fetal develop goes from an embryo, with zero viability, towards a fully developed fetus, with, hopefully, full viability. Along the way, there is a continuum of viability that depends on development, health, genetics, etc. As an example, at around 24 weeks, a fetus has developed lung surfactant, a significant milestone in development, yet legally, 20 weeks is viable, a contentious point in ethical law. Therefore, viability is anything but a simple matter.

        Regardless, while viability exists on a continuum, rights are absolutes. A complete, living woman, has absolute rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She does not lay claim to the efforts of others through requiring their sacrifice, nor may others lay claim to her efforts. This is an absolute. A fetus, in a strictly descriptive term, is a parasite, i.e. it exists at the cost of the mother. She may choose to surrender her values, her effort and energy, to mature this fetus and bring it to term and deliver it, or she may choose to discontinue the support. This is abortion.

        Arguing, “well at 36 weeks, the fetus is viable, so it is illegal to abort” raises some interesting ethical concerns. If she cut herself open and clamped the cord, choosing to discontinue support of the potential human, she is not be harming the fetus, but simply choosing to no longer support it. To say that our country has the duty to protect the rights of the fetus that is still attached to another human being is akin to protecting the rights of one person at the harm of another. If the 36 week pregnant mother says, “I want an abortion,” the state does not have the right to say, “Ok, we will cut it out of you, induce labor, or force you to carry that child a little long until your body delivers.”

        The reason this is so important is because making the above argument in defense of a potential life at the cost of the rights of another life, the mother, sets a dangerous precedent that it would be foolish to think would not happen. The pro-life (absolutely no abortion) groups believe that a woman has no right to herself once she conceives. They are wrong. To give an inch, to say that a connected fetus has rights that must be protected by infringing upon the rights of the mother, is a compromise and a foothold for those who wish to impose their morality on free men and women.

        And thank you for the debate. I wish it only to be constructive and enlightening. I respect anyone who has a different view, I just want to make sure that their premise is not predicated on contradictions. In the end, we each have one vote and one voice. God bless America!

        • Sorry, but I’m calling B.S on this one. Riddle me this. If a mother is shot and killed while 36 weeks pregnant and the fetus dies as well, why is the offender charged with a double murder and not a single. It’s two lives. The baby has a ridiculously high viability to survive at 36 weeks. If the mother’s life isn’t threatened and she chooses to abort at 36 weeks, it is murder plain and simple. Quite frankly, it scares me you are going to be a Doctor. Please tell me you don’t live in Florida or DC.

          • The criminal law dealing with double murder is complicated, to say the least, but there’s a fundamental difference between a woman, who by her choice, discontinues the support of a fetus and a man who against the will of the mother, takes her life and also that of a very viable potential life. And saying “her life isn’t threatened” is a value judgement that others are not in the position to make. She chooses the choices that best fulfill her pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Forcing someone to conceive, natural or through surgery, may not be a risk compared to the fetus to you, but to another woman, it may not be worth it. That’s her choice. Forcing her to deliver violates her rights.

            And please remember, MY values are against abortion. I think it’s wrong. If I were a woman, I would never have one unless my life were in danger. As a physician, I would not perform one unless the life of the mother were fatally at risk. I think that our values are very similar, and I like to think I will be a great doctor! I also don’t agree with the act of abortion and always try to convince people who want one to change their minds. I am also for very harsh persecution to those who practice abortions in a fraudulent, unethical manner. All this is my personal view, and I have a right to say it and try to convince others to agree, but my ability, and that of my society, must end before undertaking force to make others adhere to my value system. That is the very essence of the constitution.

            • Don’t miss two of my very important points. I said “if the woman’s life were in danger.” But if it is a matter of convenience since when did the constitution ever think we should kill people for convenience.
              Secondly, when it comes to the difference between being murdered or choosing to murder, my point is in the eyes of the law it is a viable human being, and what a shocker, the umbilical cord is still attached and the it is being considered the death of two people not one. THAT is my point. You can’t convenietnly call it a fetus with no rights in one respect, but then turn on a dime and suddenly call it a baby in the other right.
              I absolutely believe if the mother is in any sort of danger it is her choice. But seriously, killing a 36 week old baby for shits and giggles? Are you effing kidding me?

        • The other comments were getting too skinny…

          What do you mean her life were in danger? C – sections, even vaginal delivery is dangerous. It is HER burden to weigh those risks, not society’s. And you seem to be avoiding my premise. The rights of the mother, who is growing the fetus at her own cost, are more important than those of the fetus until delivery because it is the fetus who is alive at the whim of the mother. This is her body, her life, her comfort. I cannot impose my values on her through force. If she chooses to deliver, or undergo surgery, it would be ridiculous (and unbelievably uncommon) for her to see the baby, still attached to the cord but outside her body, and yell, “Kill it now!” That would be a situation where I would defend the rights of the baby because clamping and cutting that cord are not violating the right of the mother. Anything happening inside her (including partial birth abortions, a procedure done for the safety of the mother because the head is not delivered) are done by the choice of the mother, and society may not lay claim to the fetus at the cost of the mother. This is an issue of personal rights.

          The argument I made about murder is different, so therefore I have made no contradictions. The fetus is a potential life that the mother is caring for at her cost. I will illustrate this with an example: If you were caring for your ailing mother our of the goodness of your heart, who was bedridden and completely dependent on you, and a man broke in an shot both of you, he could not argue that he only killed one person because your mother was dependent on you. On that same note, society cannot force you to care for your mother against your will. They cannot rob you to pay for her care, nor can they sit there gun in hand and make you feed her. They cannot call it murder if you choose to stop caring for her. This is how the law works.

          I see that I will not convince you to change your mind, and really, I don’t care. But please realize that your logic is based on supplanting the absolute rights of a mother for those of a potential life, and your reasoning is based on a continuum of probabilities that rely on a myriad of factors. You are imposing your values and basing them on ultimately unknowable parameters. You are quoting the constitution on one hand and violating it on the other. This is the fatal mistake the people make when they rely on their feelings and emotions to set the standards of society, and places you solely on the proverbial slippery slope.

          • Then why are you forcing your “moral argument” on the baby? OF COURSE DELIVERING IS DANGEROUS! So you think a baby should be allowed to be killed up to term because the delivery might be dangerous for the mother? Have you taken your Hippocratic oath yet?
            I had preeclampsia with my son. That is what I mean by “life in danger”. It was getting to a point where my blood pressure was so high I could have died as well as my son. My resting heart rate was upwards of 160-170 beats a minute. My body and heart were giving out. My life was in danger because of my pregnancy. I could have asked for the baby, my son, to be aborted in order to save my life. I’m supporting that view point. But I knew the longer I was able to keep him in my womb, the better HIS chance at survival would be. He decided he had had enough and at 36 weeks, he was born. He was tiny, but he and I both are alive. I am so grateful to my Doctor that worked so hard to keep us both alive. I can’t for a moment, if I were in the midst of a normal pregnancy go, “oh,,,I change my mind, just kill him.” What? Why do you give the child no right to life what-so-ever?
            Of course pregnancy and delivery is always dangerous. But at some point especially THAT late how can you even possibly argue that the baby has NO rights. I just don’t understand it in the least. And don’t you dare question my support for the Constitution. I would die to protect it. And I would have happily died to protect my son. You are morally void if you believe you can kill a child at 36 weeks FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THE MOTHER WISHES IT SO!

      • Have you read the actual Hippocratic Oath? No I do not swear in the name of Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea. I do not swear to “Never do harm” because harm may be a necessary mode to recovery that is agreed upon between my patient and myself. In general, the Hippocratic Oath is the starting point of medical ethics, but is in no way definitive. My code of ethics means I will not abort a fetus. As for holding the gun (by proxy through my government) so as to strip the rights of a woman and force her to serve her fetus either through nutrition or delivery, that wasn’t in our oath.

        Again, your situation is your own. I applaud your choice. Using it as an example is useless though. Should government have forced you to give birth? No, especially not in that clearly dangerous situation. When should government force you to do something? When you’ve already put in 36 weeks? Then it’s justifiable to take away your rights to your body? I cannot defend the rights of a fetus at the cost of the rights of another. If your child needed a kidney to live, and you were a match, could you justify giving the kidney? I would! As I probably think you would. The child’s life is in danger and you value your child more than your kidney. But as a matter or principle, government cannot come in and strap you down and take your kidney and give it to your child. As a doctor, I would have a stern heart to heart with any mother unwilling to do so. I wouldn’t however knock her over the head and take it out if she chose not to donate, saying, “Well she was clearly wrong, so I had no choice!” The principle is not on the danger of the treatment, it’s on the violation of rights.

        The 14th amendment, what Roe v. Wade is based on reads, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” You cannot “protect” a fetus, i.e. adhering to the second part, by violating the first part, i.e. taking away the freedom of choice to discontinue support and decline intervention to remove the fetus.

        We have the same personal values! But allowing government to intervene in the case of a late stage pregnancy, allows the argument for banning abortion in general because it has already set the precedent of violating the rights of the mother. The rest would be a matter of legal semantics.

        • You are correct. The state should never be allowed to violate a persons right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that applies to a fetus that would be able to sustain life on it’s own.
          You acted confused as to why a woman’s life would be in danger and could call for a late term abortion. Hence, I used my own example.
          And although I appreciate your argument that you feel the first part is violating and second part adhering, there is one small difference as to which we will have to agree to disagree. I believe the fetus should be protected as well and should also not be deprived of life. I believe that child also shares the rights of the mother. And in all of this argument, I am simply stating my opinions on late term abortions. I don’t think the death of a child is or will ever simply be just “legal semantics.” Sad to hear you do.

  5. Pingback: We have it in us to be the better men. « The Snark Who Hunts Back

  6. Pingback: Excuse me, but how did you think they calculated gestational age? « The Snark Who Hunts Back

  7. Are you familiar with the organization PLAGAL (Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians)? I am a straight ally of the organization and I would encourage you to consider joining us since it seems that, like a lot of us who identify as pro-life, you feel that there are far too many abortions happening. I think many of us who can see the gray area on this issue still feel that the situation as it is now (a huge number of abortions due to birth control failure, and abortion even of viable fetuses) is unacceptable.

  8. Oh, God… the heartlessness described in your post utterly breaks my heart. How anyone could abort a baby at any stage, let alone THIRTY-SIX WEEKS, is beyond me. It’s a good thing I’m not God, because if I were I’d tell those women and doctors “Sorry, all out of mercy for you!” *ZAP*. Heartless doesn’t begin to describe the morally bankrupt state of their beings.

  9. i’m not sure you are aware … but something like 70% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. So all of the carping about god and the murder of babies is silly considering nature (or god) aborts more fetuses than any OB/Gyn on her busiest day at the clinic.

    Just as you do not want anyone telling you who you can sleep with, no one but the woman herself should make the final decision about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

    But I get ahead of myself. Let me begin by telling you I came from a conservative home. I grew up a conservative. I was a teen when abortion was illegal and remember the women who bled to death trying to self abort. Many of these were with men who didn’t allow them to use contraception. Back then the law did not recognize marital rape; wives were not given the legal right to say “no” to sex. Thus, they became pregnant and were incapable of taking care of yet another child. If you think a woman in that position – not able to use contraceptives bc her man won’t allow her to – will be in the position to ch0ose adoption bc can’t afford another kid – you are dreaming.

    You are aware, right, that there are many women today who are in relationships which won’t allow for use of contraceptives. It might not be safe for them to ask their male partner. They don’t have the insurance coverage or access to free contraception. And they get pregnant. They aren’t in an environment healthy for a gerbil, never mind a child. So they choose abortion. Conservatives might think they have the right to make moral decisions for these women, to call their choice “selfish”. You are also white, well fed, and are on the internet, Meaning you in a heck of a lot better position financially. It is always easy to judge someone else, to look down your nose at someone else.

    Going back to what I started to say – I was conservative. But experience taught me that I can only make moral decisions for me. I don’t stand in the shoes of anyone else. I don’t live her life. So it is her choice: her life. Not mine to second guess. I know that making abortion illegal will not stop it. It will simply drive it back to where it is unsafe, where it will take many lives. And well off white girls from conservative homes will still have the money for “discreet” terminations when they face an untenable situation.

    • Well your comment is basically a bunch of pro-choice talking points jumbled together and not really worth my time actually refuting, but I will say two things.
      First, where did you get YOUR numbers on miscarriages? Because the APA (American Pregnancy Association) puts the amount of pregnancies ending in miscarriage at about 10-25%.

      Secondly, I’ll address your full comment of “why make abortion illegal, God is the biggest abortionist of them all” which…hilariously…was actually an argument I used dozens of times when I was a pro-choice liberal.

      Did you know that 100% of lives end in death?! God is the biggest murderer of them all! Why should we make murder illegal!!!!?!?!?!?!?!

      Yeah, it’s like that.

      Plus, you seem to not realize that I’m not a Christian, I’m a Deist and I don’t believe that God is a personal god that makes decisions on who carries to term and who doesn’t. Pregnancy is a biological issue, which does not always play out the way it should. That is FAR different than taking away a child’s right to live because it’s inconvenient for you at the time.

  10. I think you jump to conclusions too fast in this article. You provide no evidence to suggest the pregnant women/trans* men could safely give birth. Conditions such as lupus can cause multiple organ failure at that stage in a pregnancy. In this scenario, is it just to abort the viable foetus or to allow the pregnant woman/trans* man to suffer severe damage to their health and possibly lose their life? I personally do not believe that abortion should be carried out past viability in normal circumstances, however I also do not think it’s fair that you immediately vilify these people, calling them cruel, when you have no idea of the circumstances which lead to this decision being made.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s