What Abortionists Say

11 12 2009

I found this post at Pro-Life Blogs. It was posted by Sarah Terzo at Clinic Quotes. I have to say that after reading it, I was appalled at the coldblooded and clinical way in which these “doctors” describe the acts they are committing.

“If I see a case…after twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there…On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is “who owns this child?” It’s got to be the mother.” (2)

The late Dr. James MacMahon, who performed D&X (also known as Partial Birth) abortions


“I dare say any thinking sensitive individual can’t not realize that he is ending life or potential life.” (3)

Abortionist Dr. Charles Bender


“A lot of people say they’re killing their baby. You get a lot of that. Some people afterwards get very upset and say ‘I killed my baby.’ Or even before, they say ‘My circumstances are such that I can’t keep it, but I’m killing my baby.’ They wouldn’t rather have the baby, and give it up for adoption either. If you go into that with them they will say that they could never do that…and yet they still consider it killing the baby…well, they are killing a baby. I mean, they are killing something that would develop into maturity…” (4)

Clinic Worker Dora Greenwald


“When you do a D & C most of the tissue is removed by the Olden forceps or ring clamp and you actually get gross parts of the fetus out. So you can see a miniature person so to speak, and even now I occasionally feel a little peculiar about it because as a physician I’m trained to conserve life and here I am destroying life.” (5)

Dr. Benjamin Kalish, abortionist


“It [abortion] goes against all things which are natural. It’s a termination of a life, however you look at it.”(7)

Abortionist Robert Harris


“[The author] said “Is this a fair way of expressing what you have just said, Doctor? You tell the mother “because your baby is defective, you have the right to kill it or not to kill it. If you choose to kill it, I will do the killing.” “Of course,” he [the abortionist] said. “There is no other way to say it and be honest.” (8)

Conversation with an abortion doctor

If any of your pro-abortion friends tries to argue for abortion by using the “it’s not a baby yet” argument, just direct them to these quotes. And to Clinic Quotes. I daresay that most of your pro-abortion friends are not as jaded and coldblooded as these doctors.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine


A healthy baby despite abortion recommendations

31 12 2008

UPDATE:Bob Ellis has a great post on this at Dakota Voice.

This is a great story from the UK’s Telegraph about a couple who twice didn’t give in to the “expert” advice of their doctors to abort their baby because he might have some abnormalities if he was born.

Gaynor Purdy was warned her first child could have a fatal chromosome defect and a life threatening heart condition.

But she rejected two suggestions to terminate the pregnancy and she and her husband Lee are celebrating life with their “perfect” ten-month-old son.

Mrs Purdy, 28, a quality control inspector, said: “We refused to give up on him, and decided throughout the pregnancy that as long as he was fighting, we would continue fighting with him.”

Four months into the pregnancy doctors told them that part of their unborn child’s heart was narrow and underdeveloped and would mean open heart surgery if the baby was born.

They were warned the condition could worsen and around Christmas last year, an immediate termination should be considered.

Further tests conducted a few days later on New Year’s Eve suggested the baby could also have Edwards Syndrome – the presence of an 18th chromosome – with a life expectancy of only up to four months if birth is survived.

Consultants again recommended the couple consider aborting the baby, fearing he would little to no quality of life once he was born.

One side of his heart was slightly bigger than the other which may need an operation to correct in the future, but regular tests have been showing the condition is constantly improving.

Mrs Purdy added: “Doctors told us he was a little miracle baby. They said his heart must have been mending itself.

“Last year we were still on a knife edge thinking things would go wrong. But now he’s out of the woods we are delighted that 2009 will be Kai’s year.”

So when doctors detect something like they did in this case, why don’t they err on the side of life and say, “Hey, the odds might not be the greatest, but there’s a chance he will be okay”? By recommending to end the baby’s life, the doctors are not even giving him a chance. I hate to sound cynical here, but could it be that the hospital’s policy is to err on the side of saving money? To simply abort the baby, the hospital would be avoiding potentially many costly procedures.

If you read the entire article, you get the impression that the doctors in this case really pointed out the “incoveniences” of trying to keep the baby. At the end of the article, the hospital says they try to “offer prospective families the full facts and options”, but if they’re making a recommendation to kill the baby, how much impartiality are they really showing?

Canadian Doctors Worried More Moms Will Choose Life

12 09 2008

So I was reading the transcript from Rush Limbaugh’s show today and noticed his mention of this article at Life Site News. Seems that Canadian doctors have their panties in a wad worrying about the popular reaction in the U.S. to Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s decision to not abort her baby, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), told the Globe and Mail yesterday, “Palin’s decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same.”

“The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada,” he said.

Under the facade of “freedom to choose”, Lalonde said that “popular messages” about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, “could have detrimental effects on women and their families.”

“We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible,” Lalonde said. “We’re coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions are personal decisions.”

It’s all about choice, isn’t it? As Rush says earlier in his transcript, for liberals, you’re only pro-choice if you choose abortion. If you choose life, they refuse to let you call yourself pro-choice. So really, as Rush says, pro-choice means pro-abortion.

As for Lalonde’s last statement, he’s not really saying anything, is he? “Moral decisions are personal decisions”? Of course they’re personal decisions. Anytime anyone makes a decision, they are personally making that decision–unless, of course, they’re shaking a magic 8-ball. Lalonde implies that a personal decision only impacts the person making that decision and that no one should limit that person’s options. So what about a person’s decision to shoot someone? That is a moral decision that someone personally makes. So why should the government be able to curb a person’s ability to shoot someone? Using Lalonde’s logic, it shouldn’t be able to.

Our society has to have a set of values that are universally accepted and enforced, no matter if some individuals might disagree with them. Without a standard, chaos will reign, and there will be no respect for anyone. This is what we’re starting to see. It has started with the killing of innocent babies still in the womb in the name of freedom of choice and convenience. Other countries have legalized “mercy-killing” of elderly and chronically ill people, and they’re now struggling with the definition being broadened to apply to more and more people. What makes us think this won’t happen in the United States?

SD Doctors Must Obey State Law

28 06 2008

And now for the good news. The Christian News Wire is reporting that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that doctors must obey a law in South Dakota while the consitutionality of the law is litigated in court.

This decision requires abortion providers tell women, in writing, that the abortion procedure “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

A spokeswoman for the Intervenor Alpha Center, Kimberly Martinez, said, “We are delighted by the Court’s decision. Alpha Center exists to tell South Dakota women the whole truth about their pregnancies. Thanks to today’s decision by the court, women are now going to be given the truth by abortion providers, who have been fighting to avoid doing so for years.”