• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion doctors speak

le bouffon said:
Using this logic, should we resort to women using back alley abortions?
Click to expand...

Hey, the woman has the right to choose what to do to her body. Right?

She knows the risk - from the time she'd chosen to have sex.
We can only do so much.
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream

Many members of the medical community were critical of the film, describing it as misleading and deceptive. Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, described the film as "factually misleading and unfair".[4] John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open", that the "scream" may have been a yawn, and also that "mouth" identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest.[4] Edward Myer, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Virginia stated that, at twelve weeks, the brain is not sufficiently developed for a fetus to be able to feel pain.[8] Similarly, Hart Peterson, chairman of pediatric neurology at the New York Hospital, stated that the "notion that a 12-week-old fetus is in discomfort is erroneous."[8]

Fetal development experts argued that, contrary to Nathanson's assertion in the film, a fetus cannot perceive danger or make purposeful movements. David Bodian, a neurobiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, stated that doctors had no evidence that a twelve-week-old fetus could feel pain, but noted the possibility of a reflex movement by a fetus in response to external stimuli such as surgical instruments. The size of the ultrasound image and of the fetus model used was also misleading, appearing to show a fetus the size of a full-term baby, while in actuality a twelve-week-old fetus is under two inches long.[4] Jennifer Niebyl of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine said that what Nathanson described as the fetus recoiling from pain and seeking to escape is "strictly reflex activity" which Nathason made look purposeful by speeding up the film as the suction catheter was placed.[12] Fay Redwine of the VCU Medical Center stated "Any of us could show you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted."[12]
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of anyone who presents their arguments dishonestly.
 
Appeal to Emotion... not interested in reading what they have to say.
 
Amadeus said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream



I'm skeptical of anyone who presents their arguments dishonestly.
Click to expand...


I question some of the claims from that quote you gave. This one in particular:

Fetal development experts argued that, contrary to Nathanson's assertion in the film, a fetus cannot perceive danger or make purposeful movements.
David Bodian, a neurobiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, stated that doctors had no evidence that a twelve-week-old fetus could feel pain, but noted the possibility of a reflex movement by a fetus in response to external stimuli such as surgical instruments.


A fetus may not perceive danger however, the same neurobiologist had said that it's possible for the fetus to make a REFLEXIVE movement to external stimuli such as a surgical instrument! In other words, the fetus could've possibly doing just that in the video - REFLEXIBLY reacting to stimuli!

Therefore, how can they refute the unborn's reaction to the stimuli as shown in the video???

Btw, I haven't seen the video myself - my dad had described it to me - I don't think I could watch it. I'm reacting to the article.

I don't think anyone is really sure when a fetus starts to feel pain. Fetal-pain had become politicized too, since it's become an abortion issue....
whether they feel pain or not,

the point however, is still the same: is it okay to legalize the killing of a certain group of humans?
 
Last edited:
It seems like society is getting into the mindset that, as long as it's painless, it's okay to kill human beings.
 
tosca1 said:
Dr. Bernard Nathanson - New York City, New York

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimizes my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue.
I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate?

Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $500 a time, 1.2 million abortions means an industry generating $600 million annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion.


Abortion Doctors Tell Their Stories
Click to expand...

After I graduated from University of British Columbia medical school in 1962, I went to Chicago, where I served my internship and Ob/Gyn residency at Cook County Hospital. At that time, Cook County had about 3,000 beds, and served a mainly indigent population. If you were really sick, or really poor, or both, Cook County was where you went.

The first month of my internship was spent on Ward 41, the septic obstetrics ward. Yes, it’s hard to believe now, but in those days, they had one ward dedicated exclusively to septic complications of pregnancy.

About 90% of the patients were there with complications of septic abortion. The ward had about 40 beds, in addition to extra beds which lined the halls. Each day we admitted between 10-30 septic abortion patients. We had about one death a month, usually from septic shock associated with hemorrhage.

I will never forget the 17-year-old girl lying on a stretcher with 6 feet of small bowel protruding from her vagina. She survived.

I will never forget the jaundiced woman in liver and kidney failure, in septic shock, with very severe anemia, whose life we were unable to save.

snip

I love my work. I get enormous personal and professional satisfaction out of helping people, and that includes providing safe, comfortable, abortions. The people that I work with are extraordinary, and we all feel that we are doing important work, making a real difference in peoples’ lives.

I can take an anxious woman, who is in the biggest trouble she has ever experiences in her life, and by performing a five-minute operation, in comfort and dignity, I can give her back her life.

After an abortion operation, patients frequently say “Thank You Doctor.” But abortion is the only operation I know of where they also sometimes say “Thank you for what you do.”

I want to tell you one last story that I think epitomizes the satisfaction I get from my privileged work. Some years ago I spoke to a class of University of British Columbia medical students. As I left the classroom, a student followed me out. She said: “Dr. Romalis, you won’t remember me, but you did an abortion on me in 1992. I am a second-year medical student now, and if it weren’t for you I wouldn’t be here now.”
Click to expand...

Why I am an Abortion Doctor, by Dr. Garson Romalis - The Toronto Review of Books
 
Removable Mind said:
Source please....
Click to expand...

He's right, 85% are on unmarried women. However a significant percentage of those are in steady relationships.

The overwhelming majority of women having abortions (85%) were unmarried, including 29%
who were cohabiting. Among never-married women obtaining abortions, almost one-half had
been in a relationship for a year or longer with the man who had made them pregnant.
Click to expand...

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

This is 2008, so if anyone has anything more recent, please post.
 
_Sal said:
you might want to note that your source doctor here is a greedy sob and did it for the money only...
not the most balanced of individuals nor someone who was doing it because he believed it to be the right thing to do

karma eh?
Click to expand...

He's also an admitted liar.
 
Removable Mind said:
Nothing bothers me. Seems like the bothered are pro-life advocates. They're buying the OP article and eating up like candy. And it's somehow supposed to illustrate proof that there's some atrocity against humanity is real based on somebody becoming guilt stricken and claiming abortion is wrong. These doctors have simply come to adopt a different OPINION, which doesn't change the Constitutional realities around women's RIGHT to abort.
Click to expand...

A lot of anti choicers are pro death penalty. If someone trotted out some quotes about former executioners who are haunted by what they did, would they change their mind about being pro d/p? Doubtful. (I am pro d/p too, I'm just making a point)
 
betuadollar said:
Well my point is that saving the unborn as Pro-Life should not be a Conservative or Republican stance; we do not believe in the state support of fatherless children. Republicans and Conservatives should be Pro-Choice.
Click to expand...

I am conservative and pro choice because I believe in minimal govt. intrusion into our lives. It's for doctors to practice medicine, not the govt.
 
tosca1 said:
Well, why does it bother you for them to speak out? have you had an abortion? Are you pregnant and planning an abortion?

Here you are talking about RIGHTS, and yet you're trying to deny them their freedom to voice their opinion!

You (and all who agrees with you on that post) only prove how hypocritical pro-choice viewpoints are! Either that, or you don't even realize how you contradict yourselves...
Click to expand...

I don't see RM saying that they can't speak out. Perhaps you could quote the sentence where he allegedly does?
 
Scrabaholic said:
I don't see RM saying that they can't speak out. Perhaps you could quote the sentence where he allegedly does?
Click to expand...

Then you better re-read what he posted.
 
Scrabaholic said:
He's right, 85% are on unmarried women. However a significant percentage of those are in steady relationships.



https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

This is 2008, so if anyone has anything more recent, please post.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Scraba...

Like I said to Betuadollar...SO WHAT? Circumstances of these women's lives - only they know. And what difference does it make about the percentages or demographics other than women who are taking control of their lives - for whatever the reason. It's their life to decide. And obviously they chose not to have to be responsible for someone elses life for a couple or so decades. And I support situations where parents have had to intervene in a very young child (10 yrs old, 11, 12, etc. who became pregnant and decided it was in her best interests and KNOW that terminating the pregnancy the best choice for her.
 
tosca1 said:
Strange....I wonder why someone would claim to be converted to Christianity, if there's no reason for them to be converted?
What's in it for them? Hmmmm.....

Then post them! Nothing stops you from posting any conversions to other religions!

Methinks you see this as "gloating," because somehow it bothers you. You're affected by all these conversions.

I suppose former addicts who speak out against addiction - to warn others of the dangers, and to try to prevent others from getting addicted shouldn't be doing what they did?

I suppose you haven't heard of the term, atonement.

If their opinion bother you so much....may I suggest that you practice what you preach. Stop reading. Move on.

Well, why does it bother you for them to speak out? have you had an abortion? Are you pregnant and planning an abortion?

Here you are talking about RIGHTS, and yet you're trying to deny them their freedom to voice their opinion!

You (and all who agrees with you on that post) only prove how hypocritical pro-choice viewpoints are! Either that, or you don't even realize how you contradict yourselves...
Click to expand...

Gosh you certainly have a way of switching how you think how people need to think and behave in a lot of posts.

Everybody seems to be speaking out...including ME...just like YOU ARE. So what?

If 70% of abortion doctors walked away based on some reversal of moral beliefs regarding abortion...then you might have an interesting OP. As it is, it's just "some doctors" who are voicing their SWITCHING beliefs. Good for them. Be a living example of their beliefs and don't perform anymore abortion.

Other than that? We have some testimonials of doctors voicing their PERSONAL OPINIONS about abortion.
 
Removable Mind said:
Everybody seems to be speaking out...including ME...just like YOU ARE. So what?
Click to expand...

But I'm not complaining about anyone speaking their minds - like these doctors - the way you do! :lol:


Instead of addressing the issue, your complaint is the fact that they did speak out!
And ironically, you're among those who talk big about fighting for so-called rights!

You have no clue as to how guilt-ridden people would want to atone, to make things right....or to just even admit to their wrongs. I suppose it's because these doctors were so much into doing abortion - and Dr Nathanson was also a public figure, having been a radical pro-choice - thus, they would understandably want to come out publicly, in their effort to try to make right what they'd realized was wrong.

It bothers you that we "gloat" about those who converted to Christianity like as if there aren't any converting to Buddhism, Taoism, etc.,
Well, by all means - exercise your right to free expression - and provide those conversions if you feel so strongly about it!

Whining about me giving names after names after names of intellectuals or public figures who'd converted to Christianity isn't the way to go about it.
It seems you're trying to make me shut up! You can't bear to hear about them. They're grating on you like fingernails on blackboard!
Like the conversions step on your nerves.

And......you're also hurting my very sensitive feelings. :mrgreen:
And you make yourself seem like a crybaby! :lol:


And you go on and on about rights! That makes your stance hypocritical! Or, you don't actually understand anything about rights.
At the very least....you don't understand humanity.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Dr. Bernard Nathanson - New York City, New York

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimizes my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue.
I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate?

Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $500 a time, 1.2 million abortions means an industry generating $600 million annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion.


Abortion Doctors Tell Their Stories
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter when life begins. You can't force someone to use their body in a way they don't want. I can't force someone to donate an organ or donate blood to save someone's life, and in the same way, we can't force a woman to use her body to sustain a baby against her wishes.

It really is that simple.
 
tosca1 said:
But I'm not complaining about anyone speaking their minds - like these doctors - the way you do! :lol:


Instead of addressing the issue, your complaint is the fact that they did speak out!
And ironically, you're among those who talk big about fighting for so-called rights!

You have no clue as to how guilt-ridden people would want to atone, to make things right....or to just even admit to their wrongs. I suppose it's because these doctors were so much into doing abortion - and Dr Nathanson was also a public figure, having been a radical pro-choice - thus, they would understandably want to come out publicly, in their effort to try to make right what they'd realized was wrong.

It bothers you that we "gloat" about those who converted to Christianity like as if there aren't any converting to Buddhism, Taoism, etc.,
Well, by all means - exercise your right to free expression - and provide those conversions if you feel so strongly about it!

Whining about me giving names after names after names of intellectuals or public figures who'd converted to Christianity isn't the way to go about it.
It seems you're trying to make me shut up! You can't bear to hear about them. They're grating on you like fingernails on blackboard!
Like the conversions step on your nerves.

And......you're also hurting my very sensitive feelings. :mrgreen:
And you make yourself seem like a crybaby! :lol:


And you go on and on about rights! That makes your stance hypocritical! Or, you don't actually understand anything about rights.
At the very least....you don't understand humanity.
Click to expand...

I'm not complaining about them speaking out. I'm laughing at the way pro-life cling this these doctors comments like they were sent from god as messengers to inform the world of their evil ways.

They are just people. People who choose to work as medical providers in abortion clinics and change their views and opinions. Hell, they are entitled to them like everybody else, but they ain't messengers from god.
 
joG said:
You mean to a court's interpretation of the Constitution. That is because we all know that mass murder was usually legal and constitutional in the jurisdiction in which it was perpetrated. Where this was not the case, it was committed by broad based popular action. So we shouldn't mix up legal with ethical or not criminal. We have hanged people that made that mistake.
Click to expand...

Please explain how the individual decisions that women make amount to an organized agenda to wipe out a group or demographic of people?
 
tosca1 said:
Here's what your source says! It's at the very top....you missed it!


Average Abortion Doctor Salaries (in USD as of Nov 8, 2015)

The average salary for abortion doctor jobs is $71,000.

Average abortion doctor salaries can vary greatly due to company, location, industry, experience and benefits.

Abortion Doctor Salaries | Simply Hired



Anyway, what's your point?





Associate Editor Meredith Oakley’s column entitled: Abortion business is profitable states,

“Abortion, you see, is something of a cash cow at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the facility against which abortion opponents filed a lawsuit in 1991 on the ground that UAMS was violating the amended Arkansas Constitution by performing abortions for reasons other than to save mothers’ lives.

According to testimony by Dr. Harry Ward, the UAMS chancellor, the abortion program is self-supporting. Indeed, thanks to the exorbitant rates imposed on the paying customers, the UAMS abortion program generates enough profit to cover the debts of the non-paying customers.

Consider last week’s (State Court opinion, on funding of abortion with tax dollars) : “It appears that the charges billed by UAMS far exceed costs, since full-pay patients cover the costs of those patients who do not pay.”

The opinion noted that UAMS charged $ 2,500 for an abortion through June 1, 1992, but later raised the charge to $ 4,000.

Not only is the state still in the abortion business, it’s doing very, very well.”

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ,Abortion business is profitable: 5-11-1997

Abortion is Profitable | ClinicQuotes



It's a lucrative business - that's the problem!
Click to expand...

Is there any reason why any medical procedures shouldnt be financially worthwhile to attract competant professionals to perform them? Isnt women's health that important?
 
tosca1 said:
Hey, the woman has the right to choose what to do to her body. Right?

She knows the risk - from the time she'd chosen to have sex.
We can only do so much.
Click to expand...

Exactly...by making sure that safe, affordable abortions are available.

Unless you'd prefer they'd suffer? Perhaps die due to complications by unlicensed practitioners?
 
Lursa said:
Please explain how the individual decisions that women make amount to an organized agenda to wipe out a group or demographic of people?
Click to expand...

Via email, silly girl. :mrgreen:
 
tosca1 said:
I question some of the claims from that quote you gave. This one in particular:

Fetal development experts argued that, contrary to Nathanson's assertion in the film, a fetus cannot perceive danger or make purposeful movements.
David Bodian, a neurobiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, stated that doctors had no evidence that a twelve-week-old fetus could feel pain, but noted the possibility of a reflex movement by a fetus in response to external stimuli such as surgical instruments.


A fetus may not perceive danger however, the same neurobiologist had said that it's possible for the fetus to make a REFLEXIVE movement to external stimuli such as a surgical instrument! In other words, the fetus could've possibly doing just that in the video - REFLEXIBLY reacting to stimuli!

Therefore, how can they refute the unborn's reaction to the stimuli as shown in the video???

Btw, I haven't seen the video myself - my dad had described it to me - I don't think I could watch it. I'm reacting to the article.

I don't think anyone is really sure when a fetus starts to feel pain. Fetal-pain had become politicized too, since it's become an abortion issue....
whether they feel pain or not,

the point however, is still the same: is it okay to legalize the killing of a certain group of humans?
Click to expand...

Why not? We've legalized the killing of men (and now women) aged 18 to 35 (???) when we decided to send military people to war. And we made it legal for them to kill whomever we chose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom