Home - List All Discussions

the woman's life lie

by: ProInformed

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life."
Alan Guttmacher, M.D.
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9603/articles/goodwin.html

reply from: SCJL

Yep, the only excuse would be ectopic pregnancy, but if it were me . I'd ask my docs if there were anyway they could implant the embryo into my uterus.

reply from: Shenanigans

There's been some good work being done with monkies and higher primates for this subject. I agree with you totally, if it were me I'd want them to try everything and if the child still died, well, at least we tried.

reply from: sheri

I would want that too. I heard about this being done with elephants.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9603/articles/goodwin.html

reply from: Yuuki

Look at who said that. I thought some of you believed Guttmacher to be evil. You certainly don't listen to any sources posted from them.

reply from: xnavy

i was watching a show called deliver me and there was a woman with a heart arhythimia and a defribilator in her chest and she did
just fine delivering her beautiful little girl. her cardiologist was in the delivery room with her and he shut off the defribilator during the
delivery and turned it back on afterwards.

reply from: Yuuki

I'd like to mention this is a documentary style show, so these are real women, not renactments, and real deliveries.

reply from: Cecilia

if a woman chooses for treatment to go that far then I am absolutely fine with it!
to force a woman to however I find unacceptable. you can bet your own life, i will hold my chips for me.

reply from: ProInformed

Look at who said that. I thought some of you believed Guttmacher to be evil. You certainly don't listen to any sources posted from them.
Pro-lifers quoting abortion industry reps and employees is not exactly something new or unusual, when the quote reveals a truth that choicists are either ignorant of or ignoring.
Unfortunately no matter how many times some choicists have such truths exposed to them they still keep right on chanting the lies provided by the abortion industry public relations groups (so-called 'pro-choice' groups).
I've got a better idea: look at what was said - an admission that it is a lie when choicists chant that there are supposedly all these women who need to abort or else they will die. Now some choicists probably don't know it's a lie and really think they are saving women's lives by defending the abortion industry... but other choicists know they are lying, so obviously their claimed concern for the lives of women is just a cover hiding their real reasons for defending abortion.

reply from: yoda

And yet, you find it perfectly fine to "force" an unborn baby to DIE.
Isn't that a "control" issue? When you take away someone's life, don't you "control" them?

reply from: yoda

When an acknowledge proabort like Guttmacher says something that is less than positive for abortion "rights", that certainly gives it credibility.

reply from: ProInformed

Actually if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and goes to have an abortion, she will probably end up dead (several women have died for that very reason)!
The abortion industry is opposed to allowing pregnant women to see a sonogram and prefers to operate assembly-line fashion to maximize profits and to rush the women through. One of the many risks of going to an abortion clinic is that they will not take the time to detect an ectopic pregnancy.
The surgical procedure to remove an ectopic pregnancy is not one of the abortion techniques used by abortionists or at abortion clinics.
The purpose of the life-saving surgery for an ectopic pregnancy is not to kill the baby - that is just an unfortunate side-effect because we don't yet have the technology to save all of those babies while also saving the mother.
Also, there have been some cases where both the mother and the baby have survived ectopic pregnancies.
BTW, a so-called 'safe & legal' abortion increases a woman's chance of having a life-threatenting ectopic pregnancy in a future pregnancy - a fact that the abortion industry doesn't want to tell women.

reply from: ProInformed

The mothers had their wombs emptied by "abortion," when, in reality, the tiny baby was lodged in the tube. Later, the tube ruptured and the women died. Rubin et al., "Fatal Ectopic Pregnancy After Attempted Induced Abortion," JAMA, vol. 244, no. 15, Oct. 10, 1980 H. Atrash et al., "Ectopic Preg. Concurrent With Induced Abortion"; Am. J. OB-GYN, Mar. '90, p. 726
"The increased incidence of PID - especially Chlamydia - and induced abortion appear to play leading roles in the dramatic rise in ectopic pregnancies." H. Barber, "Ectopic Pregnancy, a Diagnostic Challenge," The Female Patient, vol. 9, Sept. 1984, pp. 10-18

reply from: Yuuki

Oct. 10, 1980
Mar. '90,
Sept. 1984
And this is why doctors today now use a fancy machine called an ultrasound to see where the unborn child is before aborting it. It should be a required step in ANY abortion. It's 2009.

reply from: ProInformed

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl75lwallace.htm

reply from: ProInformed

Another woman who died from an ectopic pregnancy after going to an supposedly 'safe' abortion clinic:
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl02bvise.htm

reply from: ProInformed

"Dr. Warren Hern, a provider in Denver, said the latest reports demonstrated that abortions by RU-486, or Mifeprex, were far riskier than surgical ones. "I think surgery should be the procedure of choice," Dr. Hern said. Pills, he said, "are a lousy way to perform an abortion.""
BTW Warren Hern is considered an expert on abortion and wrote the textbook on how to perform abortions... spinfibby being considered a well-informed, unbiased, honest reference on abortion risks... not so much...not at all in fact.

reply from: ProInformed

"The complications associated with RU-486 far exceed the complications of surgical abortion," said Dr. Damon Stutes, a provider in Reno, Nev., who refuses to offer pill-based abortions. Dr. Stutes, whose clinic has been bombed, said he was uneasy about agreeing with abortion opponents on anything.
"But the truth is the truth," he said.

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.ru486.org/ru2.htm

reply from: ProInformed

Magnolia Thomas died from an ectopic pregnancy that the abortionist failed to detect:
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa011803a.htm

reply from: ProInformed

More women killed by so-called 'safe' legal abortions because the abortion industry is insuch a hurry to maximize profits that they rush the women through like cattle:
Janyth Caldwell
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl86jcaldwell.htm

Claudia Caventou
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl86ccaventou.htm

Barbara Dillon
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl86ccaventou.htm

reply from: ProInformed

And Sherry Emry died form an undetected ectopic pregnancy after an abortion at a 'safe & legal' clinic:
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl78semry.htm

reply from: ProInformed

And Gladyss Estanislao died from an ectopic pregnancy that an abortionist didn't tell her about:
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl89gestanislao.htm

reply from: ProInformed

They've had sonograms/ultrasounds for some time now.
Women have been dying from undetected ectopic pregnancies in spite of the fact that the technology is available to detect ectopic pregnancies by ultrasuond BECAUSE the abortion industry cares more about selling/doing as many abortions as they can per day than about the safety and lives of the women.
Also, the fetal remains are supposed to be examined after each abortion to make sure all the parts of the baby were 'removed'. But clinics have been known to skip that step to rush more women through OR to send women home without informing them that the abortion was incomplete, falsely and dangerously assuring them that the symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy or an incomplete abortion are 'normal'.
BTW, there are no 'pro-choice/pro-woman' groups that support making it a requirement that abortion clinics use ultrasounds, are there?

reply from: ProInformed

Three women who died from undetected ectopic pregnancies after taking RU486:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL06/ru486.html
The suggestions that RU486 can be taken without the recommended number of doctor visits is dangerously irresponsible and evidence that the 'pro-choice/pro-woman' activists who think that way don't really care about the lives and safety of women!

reply from: ProInformed

Josefina Garcia's death is deceptively counted as an ectopic pregnancy death, not as a death from so-called 'safe' legal abortion, even though the NAF endorsed clinic she went to failed to use procedures that would have detected her ectopic pregnancy so she could have recieved life-saving treatment at a hospital.
BTW, this sort of deceptive reporting is how the abortion industry gets away with the lie that abortion is supposedly 'safer than childbirth'.
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa010703a.htm

reply from: ProInformed

ah, another choicist cultist who thinks women dying at the hands of an industry that cares more about profits than about women, doesn't matter...

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.feministsforlife.org/video/i-am-that-exception.htm

reply from: ProInformed

ah, another choicist cultist who thinks women dying at the hands of an industry that cares more about profits than about women, doesn't matter...
So it's ok for a choicist to yawn when womEn are KILLED BY ABORTIONISTS...
but imagine the outcry if a pro-lifer showed such disinterest and lack of concern whan even one male abortionist is killed?
Don't even bother to ever pretend that you defend abortion because you care about women.
Oh and you choicists posters who have no criticism for your fellow choicist's blatant lack of concern for women can also not bother to claim you care about women either.

reply from: ProInformed

Just as big of a lie is the pretense that choicists care about the lives of women:
"YAWN"
futureshocks response to women killed by ectopic pregnancies BECAUSE the abortionists who operated on them failed to use proper procedures to confirm the location of the fetus and/or that all fetal body parts had been removed.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=6585&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear&#lastunread

reply from: ProInformed

Choicists don't care about women's lives.
They just pretend they do... sometimes...
But they don't even pretend to oppose the number one cause of death to pregnant women:
being murdered by males who are enraged when the pregnant female won't abort.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/23/earlyshow/main675945.shtml%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr

reply from: ProInformed

bumping just because the choicists want to keep it secret how they ignore the deaths of women killed by 'pro-choice' males.

reply from: 4choice4all

on this page of the thread....16/18 posts were from you.....you DO realize you are talking to yourself and even the other prolifers avoiding discussing the crap you spew, right? lol

reply from: Yuuki

Pro-choicers know medical abortions are more dangerous than surgical ones. That's no surprise.

reply from: ProInformed

Uh yuuki - before you post you should read the thread first.
Spinfibby posted that RU-486 is supposedly a 'safe' way of 'ending ectopic pregnancies'.
I responded with quotes from abortion experts refuting the lie that RU-486 is safer than surgery.

reply from: ProInformed

Some of you choicist cultists do know that, but you don't criticize the spinfibbies who keep right on lying to women - assuring women that RU-486 is 'safe', do YOU?
Instead you chose to post a complaint about my posting quotes about RU-486 being unsafe.
And THAT is no surprise either you pretenda-pro-life POSEter.

reply from: Yuuki

Some of you choicist cultists do know that, but you don't criticize the spinfibbies who keep right on lying to women - assuring women that RU-486 is 'safe', do YOU?
Instead you chose to post a complaint about my posting quotes about RU-486 being unsafe.
And THAT is no surprise either you pretenda-pro-life POSEter.
"My" choicist cultists? I am not pro-choice. RU-486 can be used safely to induce labor in full-term women if used by a properly trained professional, in the proper setting. Botox is one of the most poisonous things known to mankind, but it too can serve a theraputic function when used properly. I am not denying RU-486 can be dangerous; of COURSE it can, when used by an ameture to induce an abortion!!
You are a human being.

reply from: faithman

Some of you choicist cultists do know that, but you don't criticize the spinfibbies who keep right on lying to women - assuring women that RU-486 is 'safe', do YOU?
Instead you chose to post a complaint about my posting quotes about RU-486 being unsafe.
And THAT is no surprise either you pretenda-pro-life POSEter.
Yepper, some are great word twisting issue changers. The issue is the use of these chemicals to kill children, and have also killed women. We are talking about the abuse of these chemicals, not proper use to preserve life.

reply from: ProInformed

http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2009/06/anniversary-one-of-dozen.html

reply from: ProInformed

Originally posted by: Augustine
When we kill the mouse we lie to him when we present him with free food on the trap.
Are we forcing the mouse to take the bait, or are we coercing him with a lie?
In the great scheme of things the lies that the abortion industry tells are far more perverse than if they simply forced woman to abort because by lying they actually lead the woman into making the choice themself.
"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life."
Alan Guttmacher, M.D.

reply from: ProInformed

Today's News & Views
May 15, 2009
Altered RU 486 Protocol Increases Risk of Surgical Intervention
Editor's note. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. They are much appreciated.
United States use of the abortion pill RU486 was approved by the pro-abortion administration of President Bill Clinton. But this action, finalized in 2000, did little more than whet the appetite of the abortion industry, since there were some strings attached.
At the top of the list of items abortionists have worked unceasingly to remove were the commonsensical limitations on its use and the attempt to assure that the two-drug abortion technique is administered in a manner that decreases the chances that there will be complications for the mother. (The first drug kills the baby. The second drug-- typically the prostaglandin misoprostol--stimulates severe uterine contractions to expel the dead or dying baby.)
For example, the abortion industry didn't like that the protocol put in place by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expected the woman to come back for separate visits to take each of the drugs in the chemical cocktail (at least 24-48 hours apart), and which limited the drugs' use to the first 49 days of pregnancy.
But what happens when women do receive both RU486 and the prostaglandin simultaneously? It is "not as effective," according to a study just released by researchers at the Boston Medical Center.
The findings, presented at the 2009 Annual Clinic Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) found that women receiving the drugs simultaneously required "surgical interventions" (to deal with bleeding, failed abortion, patient satisfaction) nearly twice as often as those women who observed an interval of at least a day between the administration of the RU486 and the prostaglandin (7.4% vs. 3.9%).
Rates of completed abortion after two weeks were 77% for the group receiving the two drugs simultaneously, and 84% for those taking them separately. Both completion rates are considerably lower than the 97% figure advertised by the industry. See, for example, Planned Parenthood's webpage on the abortion pill at www.plannedparenthood.org.
According to Medscape Medical News (5/5/09), Melissa Stafford, the lead researcher who presented the findings at the ACOG meeting, indicated that simultaneous administration was "convenient," according to a reporter, "because it allowed the physician to confirm that medication was taken properly" and because "it eliminated the risk of losing medications."
Unspoken, but obviously a factor to patients, was the "convenience" of not having to plan a return visit for the second pill.
In the end, Dr. Stafford indicated, the reduced effectiveness was too big a hurdle for the Boston Medical Center. "We have changed our practice," she told Medscape, "and we no longer offer simultaneous administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for medication abortions."
None of this came as any surprise to pro-life experts who have followed the twists and turns over the last decade.
"Those who have developed and promoted RU 486 have told women that the abortifacient offers them a way to have an abortion without the risk of surgery," says Dr. Randall K. O'Bannon, National Right to Life's Director of Education and Research.
"But as this latest study shows," he continued, "the abortion industry's efforts to tamper with the FDA protocol have decreased the 'effectiveness' of these drugs and put many of these women in line for surgical abortions after their chemical abortions failed."
Almost immediately after the drug combination received government approval, the abortion industry began to ignore the FDA-prescribed protocol. They altered the doses-- decreasing the dose of the expensive RU486 (at one point, priced $90 a pill, three pills to a dose) and increasing the dosage of the cheap prostaglandin (misoprostol). Rather than have women return to the office a couple of days later to take the prostaglandin orally, the clinics gave the women the misoprostol in their first visit when they came in for the RU486, with instructions to take the prostaglandin home and vaginally self administer. The ignored the 49 day limit, prescribing the pills to women at 8 weeks, 9 weeks, 10 weeks or more along in their pregnancy.
Although the industry refused to link the decision, when women began to die, they pulled back some.
Planned Parenthood, the leader in the abortion industry, announced it would no longer be recommending the vaginal self administration of the misoprostol. Their website temporarily reduced time frame it could be used from 63 to 56 days. (It is back up to 63 now.)
This most recent study shows that the industry continues its efforts to streamline the process, with all the risks inherent in that.
O'Bannon noted, "Making chemical abortions more 'convenient' for patients, for abortionists, may help the industry attract more customers, but it may also have the consequence of making these already dangerous abortions even more dangerous for women."
He concluded, "As long as the abortion industry puts its own profits and preferences ahead of patient safety, both mothers and their unborn children will continue to face danger behind clinic doors."
www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/index.html

reply from: ProInformed

bumping for Jason Fonataine because he still believes the 'life of the mother' lie, the huge gaping loophole the choicists rely on as an excuse to kill babies even in the last few days of pregnancy.

reply from: ProInformed

former abortionist exposes fact that late-term abortions are not really because of the woman's life:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09062207.html

reply from: ProInformed

Referring to a statement by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted in 1997 that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies, Dr. Davenport explains that "contrary to the assertion of abortion rights supporters that late- term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems, young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns."

reply from: ProInformed

"Most of Tiller's abortions conformed to the generally elective character of these late-term procedures," writes Davenport. "Peggy Jarman of the Pro-Choice Action League stated that about three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients were teenagers who denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until that fact could no longer be obscured."

reply from: ProInformed

Considering the claim that serious maternal health problems require abortions, Dr. Davenport states that "intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion."
Sometimes the deception is the mother is told the lie that she has to abort to save her own life;
sometimes the deception is that the public is told the lie that most late-term abortions are to supposedly save the life of the mother.

reply from: siri

There's been some good work being done with monkies and higher primates for this subject. I agree with you totally, if it were me I'd want them to try everything and if the child still died, well, at least we tried.

reply from: siri

There's been some good work being done with monkies and higher primates for this subject. I agree with you totally, if it were me I'd want them to try everything and if the child still died, well, at least we tried.

reply from: siri

Whoa again--you two support experiments on higher primates and elephants? Let me guess--something about their relatively less complex brain structure compared to humans makes it ok to "work on" them (chilling phrase). Is that kind of like...abortions of fetuses being ok because of their relatively less complex brain structure compared to fully formed people?

reply from: siri

There's been some good work being done with monkies and higher primates for this subject. I agree with you totally, if it were me I'd want them to try everything and if the child still died, well, at least we tried.

reply from: siri

Whoa--you two support "working on" (chilling phrase) higher primates and elephants??! Let me guess--does your approval rest on the relatively less complex brain structure that they have compared to us? Kind of like my approval of abortion rests partly on the less complex brain structure of a fetus compared to a fully formed human?

reply from: siri

Whoa! The two of you approve of doing "good work" (chilling phrase) on higher primates??! and elephants? Does this have something to do with our relatively more complex brain structure compared to them--kind of like my placing the woman's needs ahead of the fetus re. abortion has in part something to do with our relatively more complex brain structure compared to a fetus?

reply from: siri

Whoa! The two of you support "doing work on" elephants--let alone higher primates?!! Is this because you have assessed the relative complexity of their brain structure compared to ours? Kind of like how in accepting abortion I have assessed the relative complexity of a fetus brain compared to a fully formed person's brain, and valued hers more highly?

reply from: siri

Whoa! You two support "working on" (chilling phrase) higher primates??! Or elephants? Is this because you have judged animals as less important than people, the way I have judged fetuses as less important than a fully formed woman?

reply from: yoda

Got the hiccups today?
Or did you think your post needed to be repeated four times?

reply from: sander

LOL!
If she repeated it til kingdom come it still would be nonsense.
I think we're dealing with someone allowed to use the computer as thearpy without any training beforehand.

reply from: ProInformed

It's called chanting, yodavater.
Choicists chant to make sure no info that might challenge their status quo POV can break through into their brainwashed little minds LOL.

reply from: ProInformed

Um somebody hasn't learned yet that the term 'fetus' applies once preborn humans become 'fully developed'. Not surprising since brainwashed chanting choicist cultists are not supposed to try to learn anything - they're just supposed to trust what they've been told and keep chanting it over and over.
Oh, BTW isn't human brain development incomplete until adulthood?

reply from: ProInformed

Some of you choicist cultists do know that, but you don't criticize the spinfibbies who keep right on lying to women - assuring women that RU-486 is 'safe', do YOU?
Instead you chose to post a complaint about my posting quotes about RU-486 being unsafe.
And THAT is no surprise either you pretenda-pro-life POSEter.
"My" choicist cultists? I am not pro-choice. RU-486 can be used safely to induce labor in full-term women if used by a properly trained professional, in the proper setting. Botox is one of the most poisonous things known to mankind, but it too can serve a theraputic function when used properly. I am not denying RU-486 can be dangerous; of COURSE it can, when used by an ameture to induce an abortion!!
You are a human being.
And again, you attack the pro-lifer who warns women of the dangers of RU-486, instead of criticizing the choicist who posted the lie that RU-486 is 'safe' for women.
YOUR choicist cultists friends know they can post whatever lie they want to, endangering women's lives, and that if a pro-lifer refutes that dangerous lie you will attack the pro-lifer. Yup - YOUR choicist cultist friends KNOW they can rely on you to NOT challenge them, and to attack any pro-lifer who challenges their dangerous lying.

reply from: Yuuki

I argued with the person whom I disagreed with. Why would I argue with someone I agree with? RU486 can be used safely. This isn't a lie, or a distortion, or pro-choice chanting. It is used by doctors every day to induce full term women into labor to deliver healthy, happy babies. The drug itself is not the demon. The demon is the doctor who takes the drug and uses it to induce labor in a preterm woman with the intent of killing her child.

reply from: siri

Chanting--I so regret having to disturb your stereotype of me/us, but actually I am just having extreme trouble with this computer program. Not a natural with the computers on the best of days and this program is really weird. You post and then you scroll down and don't see the post and you think it didn't go through and you have to post it again. So sue me. But you're just looking for excuses to dismiss a person whose views frustrate you. So have a laugh at my expense if it helps you blow off some steam before you explode. (Choicist cultists? Where do some of you get these phrases?)

reply from: Darkmoon

Yes, I'm sure a woman lying on her death bed would appreciate being told it's a lie that she has the right to preserve her own life.

reply from: ProInformed

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life."
Well when they find out later that they have been lied to - that they didn't have to kill their own baby in order to survive themselves - they certainly don't appreciate the fact that they were lied to.
BTW who told you that abortion is supposedly sometimes needed to save the mother's life?
And why do you believe that?
All you have to do to learn that there really is no such thing as a woman having to kill her unborn baby in order to save her own life is to do an internet search and LEARN the truth.
BTW the above quote was from three decades ago... plenty of time for you and others to have heard it by now IF you had the courage to learn the truth instead of parrotting whatever lies the abortion industry reps tell you.
Also it has been posted in this forum several times. The only logical explanation for your persistantly ignorant belief that women supposedly would die if they couldn't kill their unborn babies is you are either lying or deliberately practicing self-deception.

reply from: ProInformed

While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child's life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.
Yet chanting choicists believe there are supposedly oodles of such cases...
just because abortion industry reps say so... LOL

reply from: ProInformed

While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child's life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.

reply from: ProInformed

LOL - I understand the computer problems.
I don't need to look for excuses to just dismiss a person whose views horrify me.
I used to be a choicer myself - I am not ignorant of the choicer POV.
And I don't need to ignore or protect myself from learning any info those with a different POV want to present.
As to where the choicist cultist term came from - observation of the obvious.

reply from: ProInformed

Originally posted by: ProInformed
Actually if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and goes to have an abortion, she will probably end up dead (several women have died for that very reason)!
Claim posted by spinwiddy:
"Nope.
Women abort ectopic pregnancies every day. RU-486 has become a safe, non-invasive way of ending ectopic pregnancies.
"Probably end up dead?" ...Not so much."
I then posted several examples of women ending up dead because they went to get an abortion instead of having the surgery for removal of an ectopic pregnancy.
And I posted several examples of wpmen ending up dead because of RU486.
The argument was not about RU486 being used to induce labor in full term pregnancies and you know it.
A dangeorus claim had been posted falsely assuring that it was safe for women with an ectopic pregnancy to go to an abortionist and/or to take RU486, in response to my warning that if a woman with an ectopic pregnancy goes to an abortion clinic she is risking her life.
Your refusal to challenge even the most hostile and vulgar choicist cultist posting here, even when she is posting claims that endanger women, preferring to instead attack a pro-lifer, has been noted once again.

reply from: Cecilia

While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child's life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.
i asked you a long time ago to provide the guttmacher source, because everywhere on line it is quoted but only on prolife sites. plus, the quote is attributed in 1967. maybe things have changed? or do you just like to be a "lifer cultist" and parrot phrases in which you have no idea the origins of?
i also think you need to provide source for the koop link he was notorious for not speaking publically about abortion and again the only sources online for that are prolife sites.
not that thses quotes matter but if you are so eager for learnings you might want to look it up.

reply from: ProInformed

While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child's life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.
i asked you a long time ago to provide the guttmacher source, because everywhere on line it is quoted but only on prolife sites. plus, the quote is attributed in 1967. maybe things have changed? or do you just like to be a "lifer cultist" and parrot phrases in which you have no idea the origins of?
i also think you need to provide source for the koop link he was notorious for not speaking publically about abortion and again the only sources online for that are prolife sites.
not that thses quotes matter but if you are so eager for learnings you might want to look it up.
Where did you ask for the reference?
I didn't see you ask for it.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that a choicist poster is doing something other than completely ignoring the statment.
(But why didn't you just search for the info online yourself?
So what if you might end up at a pro-life site?
Are you that closed-minded and scared that you can't risk ending up clicking on a pro-life website?!?)
Here's the reference:
Alan F. Guttmacher, "Abortion - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow," in The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, Calif.: Diablo Press, 1967)
Why didn't you do your own online search to find it BTW?
And here's the reference for the statement from the US Surgeon General:
C. Everett Koop, M. D., as told to ***** Bohrer, in "Moody Monthly," May, 1980
Plus here's another statement from Surgeon General Koop refuting the lie that partial-birth abortions are supposedly sometimes needed to save the life of the mother:
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorial that because of the advances in modern medicine, "partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother"
And has it never once occurred to you that the reason such info is mostly found on pro-life sites is because it is CENSORED on pro-abort biased sites?!?
WOW - you sure are a trusting little sheeple LOL!
"not that these quotes matter"...
You may not care that women are being lied to and told they supposedly have to abort or they will die but other women do care.
The fact that it doesn't matter to you, and/or you simply will refuse to believe it no matter what because you prefer to believe the lies the abortion industry tells you, just shows that you are a blind follower; it in no way refutes the truth that has been censored and that you don't want to believe.
And seriously: "maybe things have changed"?
So you really need to try to convince yourself that somehow, with all the medical advances we've had since the 60's, that it's way harder to save a mother's life now than it was way back then?
WOW again - somebody's NEED to continue to believe whatever lies she's fed in order to justify abortion is wicked strong, eh?

reply from: ProInformed

OK so the choicists use the excuse of the censorship and bias of the pro-abort websites, the fact that they do not include the statements and info that refutes the lie that abortions are sometimes needed to save the lives of mothers, the fact that it's mostly pro-life sites that provide that info, as supposed proof that the choicist sites must be telling the truth and the pro-life sites must be lying?!?
EVEN when the pro-life sites are quoting pro-aborts?!?
Um yea, some of you chocists have some seriously self-delusion issues!
And why don't choicist just do their own online searches for info in the first place, eh?
Why don't choicists check out the claims the abortion industry websites tell them instead of just automatically believing them without questioning or asking for references?
Why is it that choicists wait until pro-lifers tell them something then pretend it simply can't be true just because it's a pro-lifer telling them (and the pro-aborts won't tell them)?
And really what IS the major objection to the challenge to just go do your own online searches for info?
Why can't choicers be open-minded enough to look at both sides and sift through all the info for themselves in order to form their own POV instead of just blindly trusting the abortion industry side?
Why don't so-called 'pro-choice' sites include the statements from abortionists, doctors, abortion experts, and abortion researchers that are mostly only on pro-life sites?
I mean it's pretty lame when you have to even censor those on your own side in order to keep people in the choicist cult.

reply from: Cecilia

do you have link to the guttmacher article where someone can actually read the original? I cannot find the actual article anywhere to read.
same with the koop; it is just quoted on prolife sites.
gracious, too, honestly, you just need to stop with the attitude. dont complain that no one listens to you, you get what you earn.

reply from: Yuuki

I don't know who you/they are. "Chanting choicests" is a phrase used by some of the "lying lifers" on here. I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about. I was replying to the person right above me, aka ProInformed.

reply from: Yuuki

Originally posted by: ProInformed
Actually if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and goes to have an abortion, she will probably end up dead (several women have died for that very reason)!
Claim posted by spinwiddy:
"Nope.
Women abort ectopic pregnancies every day. RU-486 has become a safe, non-invasive way of ending ectopic pregnancies.
"Probably end up dead?" ...Not so much."
I then posted several examples of women ending up dead because they went to get an abortion instead of having the surgery for removal of an ectopic pregnancy.
And I posted several examples of wpmen ending up dead because of RU486.
The argument was not about RU486 being used to induce labor in full term pregnancies and you know it.
A dangeorus claim had been posted falsely assuring that it was safe for women with an ectopic pregnancy to go to an abortionist and/or to take RU486, in response to my warning that if a woman with an ectopic pregnancy goes to an abortion clinic she is risking her life.
Your refusal to challenge even the most hostile and vulgar choicist cultist posting here, even when she is posting claims that endanger women, preferring to instead attack a pro-lifer, has been noted once again.
RU486 can be used to deliver healthy, FULL TERM BABIES. I was very clear in my original statement and all statements thereafter that MISUSE of the drug was INDEED DANGEROUS. I was NEVER denying that. Learn to read.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics