www.liveactionnews.org

Sarah Terzo #fundie liveactionnews.org

Woman regrets abortion after seeing her 12-week-old baby: ‘They deceived me’

Previously, I’ve written about the way abortion facility workers sometimes lie to women about the development of their babies and about abortion’s risks. In the following story, a woman discovered the abortion workers lied about her baby in the worst way possible.

The now off-line website Abortion Concern had the story of a young woman named Lynda who had an abortion. She had been pressured by her boyfriend, whom she described as being “ecstatic” when the abortion was over.

Doubts and feelings of grief began to surface on the drive home. She became even more upset when her boyfriend, who had promised to stay with her after the abortion, left her alone.

As we drove away, I felt like I had forgotten something, or left something behind. We returned home, and [my boyfriend’s] promise to me to be there with me, was totally false. He left me there alone. At first, I was relieved that it was over, and then I was hit by the most overwhelming, tremendous grief I had ever experienced.

But the worst was yet to come. Lynda says:

I was also experiencing very bad cramps. Four days after the abortion, I got up to [go to the bathroom] and felt that something was not right inside. When I wiped, I glanced down at the wad of toilet paper in my hand, and saw my 12-week old fetus. Its head was smashed, and it’s eyes were on either side of its head. Its body was attached to the head, and only the right arm and hand remained. I was shocked and horrified by what I saw.

The abortion clinic had botched the abortion and only gotten part of the baby out. At 12 weeks, Lynda’s child had been fully formed. He or she had a beating heart and brain waves. Already capable of responding to touch, he would have pulled away from the abortion instruments. At the time of his death, the baby was already right or left handed. He had lungs and would have “breathed” amniotic fluid, strengthening his lungs to breathe air after he was born. Not only did he have hands and fingers, but also fingerprints. These fingerprints marked him as a unique individual who had never existed before in all of history and will never exist again.

Lynda’s boyfriend also saw the baby:

My boyfriend saw it too. He was standing in the bathroom shaving. He heard me say “oh my gosh,” when he turned to see what I was holding. He ran out of the bathroom, and kept repeating, “I didn’t see it, I didn’t see that, I didn’t see the dead baby.”

I just sat there, with tears streaming down my cheeks, as I held my baby’s hand on my pinky, trying to find words to say, of why I failed this innocent child. I had tuned my boyfriend out, to where he was just some noise in the background.

Lynda called the abortion clinic and told them what happened. But—

They criticized me, because, “a baby does not form until the last trimester.” They deceived me when they initially told me that. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what a miniature hand, with four fingers and a thumb looked like, or to know what it was I held in my hand that day.

Lynda sank into what she called a “deep depression.” She sought post-abortion counseling through a local church but says it only made her feel more guilty. Unsurprisingly, her relationship with her boyfriend fell apart:

At night, I’d lay awake in bed, sobbing quietly, so not to wake my boyfriend, who had turned from demanding, to insensitive and unsupportive, and couldn’t deal with me, given I simply just couldn’t “get over it.” My relationship with him ended.

Lynda finished her testimony by saying, “I believe the abortion doctors deceive a person.” She claimed that she would not have had an abortion if she had been told the truth.

While seeing one’s mutilated baby after a surgical abortion is very rare, sadly, being lied to by the abortion facility is not. Read more testimonies from women who were misled and regretted having their abortions.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie liveactionnews.org

Two reasons that many hospitals don't grant admitting privileges to abortionists are:

1. Abortionists are the bottom feeders of the OB / GYN community. They are generally rude, crude, and poorly skilled. But, they are excellent killers. Which does not require a lot of doktor talent.
2. Real doctors and real nurses save lives and heal lives. They do not kill lives and wound lives like abortionists do.

So, yes, real healthcare professionals find abortionists "objectionable," to say the least.

Calvin Freiburger #fundie liveactionnews.org

[ In certain circumstances, the war analogy makes sense. When a woman is raped, she has been attacked by an enemy. Her right to defend herself from further violation via abortion is analagous to "collateral damage" deaths during war. If pro-lifers find "collateral damage" deaths during war acceptable, then they don't have much of a leg to stand on when the topic is abortion for rape/incest. A similar analogy could be made for women who are being attacked by disease. Just because these are rare cases doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm against abortion on demand but I would reserve a woman's right to abortion under these circumstances.

Pro-lifers will say the baby isn't the attacker, but neither are the innocent civilians, including children and babies, who are killed during war. Babies who are killed during war are just as much "murdered" as babies who are aborted. ]

Nope, doesn't hold up at all. In just war, the collateral damage is unintentional, and the military actively tries to avoid it as much as realistically possible. They're not saying, "we're gonna specifically target this civilian, but for a good reason." In abortion, the baby is directly and intentionally destroyed.

Plus, you still have the problem of proportionality to deal with. In just war, the civilian deaths will hopefully be outweighed by a greater number of lives saved in the long run. Whereas the baby's death isn't at all proportional to the 9 months of pregnancy we're trying to avoid, as bad as it can be.


[ So because collateral damage is unintentional that makes it okay? You don't have a problem with thousands of innocent women and children being bombed to death? Gosh maybe the military shouldn't have been so risky. Maybe they should have abstained from war.

Plus, you can't measure how much hell 9 months of pregnancy + giving baby up for adoption could be. An unwanted pregnancy (even a wanted pregnancy) is life changing, whether you keep the baby or not. And it could affect many women in really negative ways that aren't worth it. Not to mention women who have been raped. They have to live with their rapist's collateral damage for 9 months? I don't think so. ]

Nowhere did I say collateral damage is "okay." I said it's an unavoidable reality when war is necessary. And in the interest of understanding just where your objection is coming from, please lay your cards on the table: are you a full-on pacifist, or do you accept that war is sometimes necessary, like in WWII? If you accept the concept of just war, then you are also accepting the reality of collateral damage, and therefore there's nothing to debate here.

Lastly, there's simply no debating with heartlessness that can describe an innocent human life as a "rapist's collateral damage".......

CALVIN FREIBURGER #fundie liveactionnews.org

image
In their never-ending quest to impugn the motives of pro-lifers, abortion defenders have accused us of hypocrisy because some support the death penalty and others oppose various government benefits.

Another variation of this attack has surfaced in our comment threads recently. Sharon Rose says the only way we can justify opposing abortion would be if we’re “equally and as vehemently against war, against the death penalty, against killing of any kind.” Astraspider asks if we respected human life “when we punished 100,000 Iraqis with their lives to avenge 3,000 of our own deaths they had nothing to do with[.]” The alleged hypocrisy of simultaneously being pro-life and “pro-war” is a very popular talking point.

But as with many other pro-abortion efforts, the logic of this attack doesn’t extend beyond the superficial. To start by getting the obvious out of the way, the pro-life movement isn’t of one mind on foreign policy, meaning pro-aborts will need to find some other reason to hate those of us who don’t fit their generalization.

The claim doesn’t fare much better against the rest of us, either, because nobody is simply “pro-war” in the sense that it’s something to celebrate, as if they value conquest and bloodshed for their own sake. Everybody supports American involvement in some wars (just about everyone except hardcore pacifists agrees on World War II, for instance) and opposes involvement in others, based on the unique circumstances of particular cases.

We could endlessly argue the merits of our nation’s interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or any number of other conflicts throughout our history, as well as the various mistakes made in each one. Such a debate, however, would depend largely on hotly contested factual questions, in-depth historical analysis, and navigating the nuances of international politics, and therefore falls more within the scope of a foreign policy website than a pro-life one.

Suffice to say, proponents of a given military action believe their cause is warranted under just war theory: it is meant to end or prevent a greater loss of life than that of the war itself, non-violent alternatives have been exhausted, effort is made to spare civilians as much suffering as possible, etc. Such judgments may be correct or mistaken depending on the case, but they don’t constitute a devaluing of human life.

What our critics are really saying, then, is that we have to be pacifists in order to truly be pro-life. Which is an absurd standard, considering that no right other than thought is completely without limitation. Is it “anti-freedom” to support imprisoning felony convicts? Is it “anti-speech” to support libel laws? Is it “anti-life” to let police officers use lethal force? Clearly not. It’s entirely reasonable, principled, and consistent to value a right while recognizing limitations on it when it comes into unavoidable conflict with other rights.

Lastly, and most importantly, the potential wrongness of any given war and of those who support them has no bearing on the case against abortion. We could concede the wrongness of every single war this nation’s ever fought, and it still wouldn’t justify letting us slaughter the unborn. There is simply no comparison between killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield and the needless and killing a baby in the womb. The former (in just wars) involves someone who knew the risks going in and has defensive capabilities, and is meant to save lives in the long run. The latter involves an innocent, defenseless victim, and saves nobody.

Indeed, abortion’s death toll still dwarfs the American casualty count of every major war we’ve ever fought, and matches the combined total. Crying hypocrisy isn’t enough to clean the blood off abortion defenders’ hands.