Is abortion safe?

doughgirl · 10-02-07, 01:19 PM

The main argument of abortion proponents has always been that abortion must be legal so it will be safe. Although proponents admit to being uncomfortable with even the idea of abortion, many support its legality based on maternal safety. The facts however show a different story. Since abortion became legal, minimum safety standards have never been met. And who has paid the price? The American woman is still paying the price. God knows how many women have died at the hands of abortionists, how many we will never know. But the fact remains it is still not safe.

Do we have accurate data that shows this? Not totally. Why? The abortion industry, the medical community, government agencies who are responsible for keeping such data will not cooperate. They cover them up because they do not care that women are being butchered. The media also will not expose what has been going on because they are also involved in the cover-up. So whatever facts and research are uncovered depend totally on the woman that seek justice through our legal systems. This is also difficult because the majority of cases brought against doctors are settled before going to court. Most abortionists make patients sign a confidentiality agreement in order to settle a case. So all information is covered up. Most legal research services track only the cases that actually go to trial.

So when you look at a chart or some statistic about abortion deaths, injuries or complications... know that the information is NOT totally representative of the whole story. And in most instances the stats are outright lies. Unless there are changes (law) in the way abortion is reported we might never know just how many woman have been killed, sexually assaulted or injured by an abortionist.

Lets begin looking The NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION

While it is true that NAF publishes standards for the operation of abortion clinics, they openly admit that there is no way of enforcing them, even within their own membership.

Quote:

Suzanne Poppema, head of NAF’s Clinical Guidelines Committee, even admits that NAF “has no credentialing power….It’s not a board and has no enforcement power.”
Warren Hern who is a NAF Board member, former head of its Clinical Guidelines Committee and author of the book Abortion Practice-helped write NAF’s abortion standards, but now calls them “ornamental,” cosmetic,” and “meaningless.” He also says that NAF “has never pursued a serious program of standards implementation and program evaluation,” adding that, “Following good standards costs money. And people don’t want to do that.” He also points out in his book that NAF has never implemented a system to monitor whether its facilities are following its standards.

All quotes from The American Medical News, “Claiming Abortion Malpractice,” By Diane Gianelli, 2/6/95

Are abortion mills monitored? Do they follow standards that ensure that women have the best and safest care? NO
Do they care? NO

We see that the NAF willingly and intentionally does not follow its own standards.

CBS did a news show (60 Minutes) about a Maryland abortion clinic that had killed two woman in botched abortions. They interviewed a woman by the name of Barbara Radford who at the time was executive director of NAF. They asked her in an unbelievable interview if she knew of the problems at the clinic. She responded that she was indeed aware of them but had decided to remain silent because

Quote:

, “This is the last thing we need. We had hoped that it wouldn’t get national publicity because of the political nature of all this.”
In the same program 60 Minute reporter, marilyn Viero, pointed out that even thought these laws could make clinics safer, abortion advocates fight them. That was backed up by then pro-choice State Senator Mary Boergers. She said, “There’s only so much of a willingness to try to push a group like the pro-choice movement to do what I hink is the responsible thing to do because they then treat you as if you’re the enemy. We want women to make sure that women have choices when it comes to abortion services, and if you regulate it too strictly, you then deny women the access to service.”
CBS News, 60 Minutes, 4/21/91

So everyone remains silent so that women will always have the option to kill their unborn children, even if the abortion itself is not safe. That’s like a police department that wants to remain silent about a rapist that was loose on a campus because they couldn’t catch him.

Just one of many in a long case history of the tragedies in our abortion mills…….

1.

Quote:

“Thirty-five year old “Sandra” had an abortion at Acme Reproductive Services (ARS)14. During the abortion, her uterus was punctured and she bled to death. Sandra left behind four children. As they had done in several other instances in which they injured women, employees of ARS 14 claimed that they were simply repairing an injury cause by the patients botched attempt at a self-induced abortion. In fact, this is a fairly common claim made by abortionists who injure their patients. Of course, this contention defies logic. First why would a women self-induce when abortion is legal? Second, even if she did, why would she go to an abortion clinic for repairs instead of an emergency room? And third, since the injured woman often traveled to the clinic from out of state, the obvious question is why a woman who injured herself trying to self induce an abortion would go out of state for help. In reality, this is simply a shabby bit of deception abortionists use to avoid responsibility for the harm they do to women.
Chicago Sun Times, “Abortion Profiteers” Series 11/12/78-12/3/78 ; Illinois Death Certificate No. 614138

2.

Quote:

On June 14, 1977, “Barbaralee had an abortion performed by John Roe 781. After the procedure, she was noted to be pale and complaining of lower abdominal cramping, so she was kept at the clinic for an additional two hours. When she was dismissed, her sister helped her, weak and bleeding, to her car, where she lay in the back seat during the trip home. Several hours later, she was found unconscious in her bedroom and was rushed to the hospital. She was pronounced death on arrival. An autopsy showed a badly torn uterus, a damaged ureter and a large amount of blood in the pelvic cavity. The face and spinal column of her fetus were embedded in a hematoma inside her uterus. A subsequent investigation noted that although vital signs taken 45 minutes after the abortion showed signs of internal hemorrhage, Barbaralee was not examined again before being discharged. She was 18 years old at the time of her death, and had been referred to this National Abortion Federation member clinic by a local women’s group.
Perry County (IL) Coroners Report 6/20/77; Chicago Tribune 8/31/77; CDC Abortion surveillance Annual Summary 1977; St. Louis Post Dispatch 6/15/79

I have over three hundred other examples such as these all of them documented with court case numbers, from 1971 to the present. These are taken from the book, LIME 5, by Mark Crutcher.

Is abortion safe? Is there a cover-up?

jfuh · 10-02-07, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doughgirl

The main argument of abortion proponents has always been that abortion must be legal so it will be safe. Although proponents admit to being uncomfortable with even the idea of abortion, many support its legality based on maternal safety. The facts however show a different story. Since abortion became legal, minimum safety standards have never been met. And who has paid the price? The American woman is still paying the price. God knows how many women have died at the hands of abortionists, how many we will never know. But the fact remains it is still not safe.

Do we have accurate data that shows this? Not totally. Why? The abortion industry, the medical community, government agencies who are responsible for keeping such data will not cooperate. They cover them up because they do not care that women are being butchered. The media also will not expose what has been going on because they are also involved in the cover-up. So whatever facts and research are uncovered depend totally on the woman that seek justice through our legal systems. This is also difficult because the majority of cases brought against doctors are settled before going to court. Most abortionists make patients sign a confidentiality agreement in order to settle a case. So all information is covered up. Most legal research services track only the cases that actually go to trial.

So when you look at a chart or some statistic about abortion deaths, injuries or complications... know that the information is NOT totally representative of the whole story. And in most instances the stats are outright lies. Unless there are changes (law) in the way abortion is reported we might never know just how many woman have been killed, sexually assaulted or injured by an abortionist.

Lets begin looking The NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION

While it is true that NAF publishes standards for the operation of abortion clinics, they openly admit that there is no way of enforcing them, even within their own membership.

Are abortion mills monitored? Do they follow standards that ensure that women have the best and safest care? NO
Do they care? NO

We see that the NAF willingly and intentionally does not follow its own standards.

CBS did a news show (60 Minutes) about a Maryland abortion clinic that had killed two woman in botched abortions. They interviewed a woman by the name of Barbara Radford who at the time was executive director of NAF. They asked her in an unbelievable interview if she knew of the problems at the clinic. She responded that she was indeed aware of them but had decided to remain silent because

So everyone remains silent so that women will always have the option to kill their unborn children, even if the abortion itself is not safe. That’s like a police department that wants to remain silent about a rapist that was loose on a campus because they couldn’t catch him.

Just one of many in a long case history of the tragedies in our abortion mills…….

1.

2.

I have over three hundred other examples such as these all of them documented with court case numbers, from 1971 to the present. These are taken from the book, LIME 5, by Mark Crutcher.

Is abortion safe? Is there a cover-up?

By the same default rational then, is removal of an appendix safe? Is any operation safe? Slippery slope

talloulou · 10-02-07, 04:58 PM

Elective abortion is a direct and violent assault against the living human in the womb with the express purpose of insuring that living human's death. In terms of "safety" we can only discuss the mother's safety. But a procedure that, if done right, kills a living human can never be called "safe" or "humane."

jfuh · 10-02-07, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

Elective abortion is a direct and violent assault against the living human in the womb with the express purpose of insuring that living human's death. In terms of "safety" we can only discuss the mother's safety. But a procedure that, if done right, kills a living human can never be called "safe" or "humane."

Juxtaposition.
You can only base that argument on that you believe it to be a death of a human being.
Neither I nor the law accept the death of a bundle of cells as the death of a human being.
The OP posted as to the response to the mother alone as a safe procedure with the slippery slope of possible out comes which is applicable to any medical operation.
Yet if abortion were no longer legal would that stop people from having abortions? Nope they'd still have it and it'd be a lie then to say that it would be a safe procedure.
Via your belief women shouldn't have the right to choose what to do with their own body.

But let me ask you, is it your belief that it's the job of the government to tell you what you can and can not do with your own body?

Cephus · 10-02-07, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

Elective abortion is a direct and violent assault against the living human in the womb with the express purpose of insuring that living human's death. In terms of "safety" we can only discuss the mother's safety. But a procedure that, if done right, kills a living human can never be called "safe" or "humane."

Yet more hyper-emotional whining by the irrational. What else is new?

talloulou · 10-02-07, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Juxtaposition.
You can only base that argument on that you believe it to be a death of a human being.
Neither I nor the law accept the death of a bundle of cells as the death of a human being.
The OP posted as to the response to the mother alone as a safe procedure with the slippery slope of possible out comes which is applicable to any medical operation.
Yet if abortion were no longer legal would that stop people from having abortions? Nope they'd still have it and it'd be a lie then to say that it would be a safe procedure.
Via your belief women shouldn't have the right to choose what to do with their own body.

But let me ask you, is it your belief that it's the job of the government to tell you what you can and can not do with your own body?

First, the law is the law but it has no real effect on the moral right or wrongness of any action unless the law is your moral compass. Slavery was inherently wrong even whilst it was legal.

Second, I have ZERO ability to separate living humans into groups where some are "persons" or "beings" and thus worthy while others are living humans who are non-persons or non-beings and thus non-worthy. In my opinion this is a way to win an argument via semantics. A living human is a living organism that is a member of the species homo sapians. Any other labels or groupings are just creative names we as a society use to exclude or include other humans from our "we". It's all but impossible for me to literally conceive a living human NON BEING. The very idea that such an entity could exist is somewhat fallacious.

Third, yes I do believe the government has and should have some control over what I do with my body.

a) The Law, which you are so fond of, allows the states to stop a woman from having a late term abortion despite the fact that we're still dealing with her body.

b) The Law also allows suicidal people to be kept safe and under surveillance for up to 48 hours in most states against their will.

c) There are rules and regulations in place that prohibit non-approved surgeries, drug use, ect. So regulating medical procedures is hardly new.

talloulou · 10-02-07, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

Yet more hyper-emotional whining by the irrational. What else is new?

When a woman pays top dollar to have the abortionist terminate the living human residing in her womb that human is killed. I don't see anything hyper-emotional about pointing that out while discussing how safe abortion is. Safe for who?

jfuh · 10-02-07, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

First, the law is the law but it has no real effect on the moral right or wrongness of any action unless the law is your moral compass. Slavery was inherently wrong even whilst it was legal.

Second, I have ZERO ability to separate living humans into groups where some are "persons" or "beings" and thus worthy while others are living humans who are non-persons or non-beings and thus non-worthy. In my opinion this is a way to win an argument via semantics. A living human is a living organism that is a member of the species homo sapians. Any other labels or groupings are just creative names we as a society use to exclude or include other humans from our "we". It's all but impossible for me to literally conceive a living human NON BEING. The very idea that such an entity could exist is somewhat fallacious.

Third, yes I do believe the government has and should have some control over what I do with my body.

a) The Law, which you are so fond of, allows the states to stop a woman from having a late term abortion despite the fact that we're still dealing with her body.

b) The Law also allows suicidal people to be kept safe and under surveillance for up to 48 hours in most states against their will.

c) There are rules and regulations in place that prohibit non-approved surgeries, drug use, ect. So regulating medical procedures is hardly new.

Therein lies your problem. You're straying away from the saftey issue of the procedure itself and arguing of the moral ethics of it.
You're morality on the matter is not the same moral code that I share. So who's morality should the law be based on.
I side with freedom. The freedom of the individual to make the decision for them self rather than have government dictate what one can or can not do with their own body.

talloulou · 10-02-07, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Therein lies your problem. You're straying away from the saftey issue of the procedure itself and arguing of the moral ethics of it.
You're morality on the matter is not the same moral code that I share. So who's morality should the law be based on.
I side with freedom. The freedom of the individual to make the decision for them self rather than have government dictate what one can or can not do with their own body.

I think OUR problem is that where I see 2 humans and feel they both deserve consideration you see 1 important human and deem the other inconsequential.

jfuh · 10-02-07, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

I think OUR problem is that where I see 2 humans and feel they both deserve consideration you see 1 important human and deem the other inconsequential.

I see one person period making a decision as to what they want to do with their own body.
As has been stated that is a moral principle to which then we go into the debate of well who's moral is correct? Which can never be determined because moral is a matter of perspective.
Thus I again fall back on the principle of freedom on the foundation of this nation.
So whether it be substance use, cigs, tattoos, piercings, or abortion it's the consenting individual's decision of what they want to do with their own body. Not your's not mine.