Skip to comments.‘Therapeutic abortion,’ and other nonsensical pro-abortion phrases
Posted on 01/13/2012 2:39:57 PM PST by Morgana
January 13, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a good source for truth when it comes to the abortion industry. During the two years he directed an abortion clinic in New York, the clinic performed 60,000 abortions. He admits to having done 5,000 abortions himself and supervising another 10,000. In his own words, I have 75,000 abortions in my life. Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject.
And what does Dr. Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL, have to say about the slogans so frequently thrown around by the promoters of abortion? He remembers laughing when his organization made up the slogans freedom of choice and women must have control over their own bodies. He reports, We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. Dr. Nathanson also admits that the abortion movement was based on lies, not womens rights.
[W]e simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion .We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S .Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion laws .[A]bortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.
Times are changing, and while the slogans Dr. Nathanson referred to are still used, there are new and modern ones that have been added to the mix. Equal to the original slogans, they are meant to capture public opinion, not to promote truth or the actual positions of the people who so frequently spout them.
For instance: abortion care. Um, what does killing a human being have to do with care? How can anyone even include the words murder and care in the same sentence? This is exactly the same as saying kidnapping care or murder care. Ok, except for the fact that abortion isnt illegal yet. But other than that, theres no difference. I simply cant wrap my mind around the concept that killing an innocent, voiceless human being is a way to care."
For anyone who claims that abortion cares about women (and is willing to admit it certainly doesnt care about the baby), why not find a different way to help a mother than kill her child? How about paying her rent? How about paying her medical expenses during pregnancy or helping her connect with organizations that do this? What about adopting her child? Those are true ways to care about a mother.
To explain myself a little better, if you wanted to help a tired mother who stayed home with her four children under the age of five, you wouldnt suggest killing the two youngest children to help her out. Youd go babysit. Youd pick up groceries, clean her house, make some freezer meals. I think its time pro-choice people stopped taking the easy way out to help women and started actually doing something practical for them (like they always say we should do). Killing is not, cannot be, and never will be the answer.
Another example: reproductive justice. This one particularly irks me. One Wikipedia definition I found for this lovely term is a concept linking reproductive health with social justice. Excuse me? Why isnt my heart health linked with social justice? What about my brain health? Or just my overall health in general? Why does only my reproductive health need special protections? Im kind of offended that all of me isnt included in this idea of social justice. Obviously, Im joking. But I have to make these kind of ridiculous jokes to illustrate the ridiculousness of this new term. In fact, Im dedicating a future article solely to this term. Stay tuned.
One more: therapeutic termination. Here are a few definitions I found:
1. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.
2. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.
3. A legally induced abortion for medical reasons (as when the mothers life is threatened).
Ok, hold it right there. The pro-abortion side tries to make this term apply to scenarios that it has no business applying it to. For instance, they apply it to abortion done because the baby would have been born disabled. That in no way, shape, or form saves the life or health of the mother. It kills an innocent baby because he or she was different than the rest of us.
In addition, there is no way therapeutic termination should apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician. What? This definition makes it sound like all abortions are therapeutic and helpful. Please. They are anything but. And the fact that this definition has found its way into an actual dictionary just demonstrates how far the deception has sunk into our culture.
Finally, its even inaccurate to call an abortion to save the mothers health or life a therapeutic termination. Any time you intentionally kill a baby, regardless of the reasons, lets just call it for what it isan abortion; a killing. You never need to dismember a living baby to save its mother. Removing a baby in an ectopic pregnancy is not intentionally killing the baby. Its a sad result of what must be done, not an abortion. Chemotherapy for mothers with cancer is not done with the intention to kill the baby. It all comes down to intention.
In Abortion: A Doctors Perspective, A Womans Dilemma, abortionist Don Sloan (who, unlike Dr. Nathanson, has not yet converted to the pro-life side) states:
In gynecology, there are only three procedures that we consider purely elective Abortions are elective. There are very few conditionsnow maybe nonethat require the termination of a pregnancy .The idea of abortion to save the mothers life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and purebut medically speaking, it probably doesnt exist. Its a real stretch of our thinking. Abortions can be seen as always purely electivenot necessary from a medical standpoint.
So, instead of making it sound good, lets call it for what it is. Straight from the horses mouth, theyre elective abortions not therapeutic terminations.
Sounds like Therapeutic Fingernail removal without anesthetic.
Abortion is not only wrong and bad because it ends a life, but because of the deep psychological scars that the mother ends up enduring. (not to mention the hormonal disruptions that are not acknowledged at all by current medical academia)
I have a acquaintance who has a very unique view on abortion.
He says the people who say they are “pro-choice” are a bunch of “pu**ies” and should just say they are pro-abortion because in his words he is pro-abortion and if the “pro-choice” people were honest they would be calling themselves “pro-abortion” because that is what they really are.
I don’t agree with his stand on abortion whatsoever, but at least he is “honest” about it and doesn’t try to hide behind words.
I have yet to meet a person who could logically defend that position. There is no logical or moral defense for the taking of someone elses innocent life. To save the life of another comes closest, but even in those VERY rare cases, all efforts should be made to preserve both lives.
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.