“”America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts - a child - as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.””—Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta
You cannot consider yourself pro-life if you are rejoicing over the fact that thousands of women will not be able to access life saving medical exams because people like you are more concerned with 3% of what Planned Parenthood does while ignoring the amount of good that organization does.
Those same women can go to regular hospitals for medical exams.
I will not support ANY organization that makes money off of killing children.
I already posted about the 3% misconception, take a look at the post.
Suction aspiration was the method used for approximately 90% of all abortions reported in Canada in 2004,4 and is generally used between six and 14 weeks of pregnancy.
Suction curettage can be done under general anesthetic, but is usually done in a clinic with local anesthetic injected into the cervix to control pain. The cervix is forced open with a compressed seaweed preparation called laminaria that swells as moisture is absorbed, or a series of rigid rods. Sometimes the prostaglandin Misoprostol is used to soften the cervix and make it easier to dilate.
A hollow plastic tube is inserted into the uterus through the cervix and attached to a suction machine. The suction tears the fetus into small parts, which are sucked through the tube into a collection bottle. Often a sharp loop-shaped knife called a curette is then inserted into the uterus to loosen any remaining tissue so that it can be suctioned out. When the suctioning is finished, the abortionist must examine the fetal parts and tissue to see if the abortion is complete.5,6,7
In 2004, less than 1% of abortions reported in Canada used this method.8
Before abortion was legalized, the term ‘menstrual extraction’ was used to disguise the performance of an early suction abortion up to seven weeks’ gestation, sometimes even before a pregnancy was confirmed. The term is misleading, since either the embryo (if the woman is pregnant), or the uterine lining (if she is not pregnant) is suctioned out. Currently, menstrual aspiration refers to an early abortion from three to 10 weeks’ gestation, using a syringe for suction. A thin hollow tube is inserted into the slightly dilated cervix. The tube is attached to a large syringe and the embryo is suctioned out.9,10
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)
Statistics are not clear on how many D&E abortions occur in Canada each year. In 2004, the most recent year for which abortion statistics have been released, at least 11% of abortions in Canada occurred after 13 weeks’ gestation.11 In the US, the majority of abortions that occur after 13 weeks are performed using a variation of this method.12
D&E abortion refers to an abortion done using forceps to dismember and extract the fetus instead of, or together with, suction. In reality, a combination of methods is generally used in abortion after 13 weeks. As the fetus grows larger and its bones become harder, the fetus becomes more difficult to extract. The cervix must be opened wider, and the head of the fetus is large and must be crushed before it can be removed. Bone fragments are sharp and must be carefully removed to avoid damage to the uterus and cervix. The fetal parts removed must be identified to make sure the abortion is complete and no parts are left in the uterus. Suction is used for a final clean out of any bits of fetal or placental tissue that may remain.13,14
Sometimes medications such as digoxin or potassium chloride are injected into the fetus through the woman’s abdomen, to kill it before the D&E procedure.15 After 19 to 20 weeks, a solution of urea or saline is sometimes injected into the amniotic sac before the abortion. This kills the fetus and stimulates contractions. Urea also begins the breakdown of fetal bones and other tissue to make removal of the parts easier for the abortionist and less painful for the mother.16 Oxytocin may be used to stimulate contractions and bring about delivery of the fetus.17
Dilation and Extraction (D&X) (intact D&E, partial birth abortion)
There are no laws in Canada restricting abortion. Since abortion reporting and recording is inconsistent and incomplete across Canada, it is not known if, or how many, abortions occur by this method in Canada each year.
D&X abortion is a variation of the D&E method, and is used after the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Laminaria treatment over several days causes wide cervical dilation. The abortionist, guided by ultrasound, uses forceps to grasp the fetus and position it face down and feet first. The fetus, intact and often still alive at this point, is delivered up to the head. The head is too big to pass through the cervix. After puncturing the base of the skull, the brain is suctioned out, the skull collapses, and the dead fetus is delivered. Digoxin, potassium chloride, saline or urea are sometimes used to kill the fetus before delivery.18
Surgical Dilatation and Curettage (D&C)
Approximately 6% of abortions reported in Canada in 2004 used this method.19
Local or general anesthetic is given to the mother before her cervix is dilated. The cervix is dilated with laminaria or rigid dilators; sometimes, the prostaglandin Misoprostol is also given to soften and dilate the cervix.
A loop-shaped knife called a curette is inserted through the cervix. The curette cuts the fetus and its placenta from the uterine wall and breaks it up. Then the fetal parts and the placenta are scraped out of the uterus through the cervix and discarded.20
Hysterotomy and Hysterectomy
Hysterotomy refers to a caesarean delivery as an abortion method. The woman’s abdomen and uterus are opened surgically. The fetus is lifted out, the placenta is delivered and the umbilical cord is clamped. If no chemical has been injected to kill the fetus prior to this point, the fetus is often still alive. Hysterotomy is sometimes used in situations where there is a uterine abnormality, which would make the more common abortion methods difficult or impossible.
Hysterectomy is the removal of the uterus. When used as abortion methods, these procedures have a higher risk of major complications and death than any other method.
There were no reports of either method being used for abortion in 2004 in Canada.21
If abortion is illegalized, wouldn't that mean women would go back to the days of "Back Alley" and "Coat Hanger" Abortions?
The idea of widespread and dangerous “back alley” abortions prior to the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973 is not supported by the facts. The medical director of Planned Parenthood wrote in 1960 that “90% of illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians.”
Likewise, the “coat hanger abortion” is a myth. In his 1979 book, Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) mentions one coat hanger abortion. However, Nathanson, who is now committedly pro-life, has publicly confessed to fabricating evidence in order to get abortion legalized. There is no hard evidence to support the performance of a single coat hanger abortion.
NARAL claimed that 1,000,000 illegal abortions were performed yearly, though they believed the actual number to be about 100,000. They claimed that 10,000 women died each year from illegal abortions, knowing that the actual number was a mere fraction of this.
Sources: Calderone, Mary S., MD 1960. Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem.American Journal of Public Health 50, no. 7 ( July). p. 949.
Planned Parenthood claims that what it advocates is “safe” sex to help prevent pregnancy and some forms of sexually transmitted diseases. The organization reports on their website that the correct use of condoms reduces the likelihood of contracting HIV making sex 10,000 times safer .
However, According to Dr. Helen Singer-Kaplan, founder of the Human Sexuality Program at the New York Weill Cornell Medical Center at Cornell University, “counting on condoms is flirting with death” .
What Planned Parenthood does not tell you is that condoms are actually largely unreliable.
According to the results of 15 studies in which over 25,000 condoms were tested, Contraceptive Technology found that the total failure of condoms is at just over eight percent when they were always used. This amounts to approximately 1 failure in every 12 uses .
The report also concluded that the likelihood of pregnancy using condoms each time a couple had sex would result in a fifteen percent chance of pregnancy over a year, which would increase to an eighty percent chance over eight years .
That’s not all. Consumer Reports tests different products to rate their safety. It found that the condoms that Planned Parenthood distributes rank as some of the worst on the market today when evaluated based on strength and performance .
With different flavors and colors (such as lollipop and honeydew), it seems obvious that Planned Parenthood is trying to market to teens. 
Conveniently, Planned Parenthood also happens to benefit when condoms do not work. It means they have more women streaming into their offices to use their costly services. They also receive more funding from the federal government because they of their high statistics of women served. They do not want women in their offices just once, but they want them to be regular customers.
As was reported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, sex with condoms is not completely safe, it is just less risky .
 The Body. (2005). Consumer Reports Magazine Rates Durex Condoms Best, Planned Parenthood Condoms Worst in Performance Review.” The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 5 Jan 2005. Web. 11 Jun 2011. http://www.thebody.com/content/art9057.html
Carey, Ronald F., et al. (1992).“ Effectiveness of Latex Condoms as a Barrier to Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Sized Particles under Conditions of Simulated Use.” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 19(4), 230–234.
Is Planned Parenthood helping to Reduce Abortion by Providing Contraception?
Planned Parenthood officials frequently claim that they want to reduce abortion by providing contraceptives, but the belief that making contraceptives widely available will reduce abortion is not supported by facts. Planned Parenthood officials also frequently declare that one of their central missions is to provide high-quality, low-cost contraceptives, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Condoms distributed by Planned Parenthood were rated among the worst available in a study by Consumer Reports magazine. Planned Parenthood has also been exposed for dramatically overcharging their clients for Plan B emergency contraception; pill purchased for $4.25 to $4.50 were resold for $25 to $32—a 400-600% markup.
Where does Planned Parenthood Stand with Parental Involvement Laws?
Planned Parenthood strongly opposes laws requiring parental involvement in minor girls’ abortions, though such laws are supported by 69% of the American public. Tough parental approval is required for a minor girl to get her ears pierced or take an aspirin dispensed by the school nurse, Planned Parenthood insists parents have no right to know if their daughters get abortions.
Doesn't Planned Parenthood Refer for Adoptions as well as Offering Abortion?
Planned Parenthood lists adoption referrals as one of the services they provide, but evidence from their own internal reporting reveals that adoption is a very low priority to them. In their annual report for 2005, the number of adoption referrals was omitted. In 2006, Planned Parenthood reported only one adoption referral for every 180 abortions.
The annual budget of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates for fiscal year 2006-2007 was $1,017,900,000—over one billion dollars. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates received $336,7000,000 in taxpayer dollars during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the most recent year for which data is available. Public funds thus constitute nearly a third of Planned Parenthoods annual budget. Planned Parenthood reported an income of $100 million for surgical abortions in 2006. Their total income for medical abortions is unknown.
Aren't abortions only a small percentage of the services provided by Planned Parenthood?
While Planned Parenthood officials claim that abortions constitute only 3% percent of their services, this figure is misleading. Out of the 10.5 million individual services they provided in 2006, 289,750 were abortions—roughly 3%. But this figure fails to account for the fact that a woman visiting Planned Parenthood for an abortion will receive several services—from a pregnancy test to some manner of counseling to the abortion itself—each of which is counted separately. A closer look at Planned Parenthood’s client and income numbers shows that the abortion figure is actually three times what they claim. Of 3.1 million Planned Parenthood clients in 2006, 9% got abortions. Moreover, abortion accounts for at least a third of Planned Parenthood’s total income from clinic services.
How many abortions does Planned Parenthood perform each year?
In 2006, Planned Parenthood performed 289,750 abortions, or approximately 23% of all abortions, making them the largest abortion provider in the United States. Even as the overall national abortion rate goes down, Planned Parenthood continues to perform more abortions every year.
Should people who have miscarriages be investigated by the police for manslaughter?
Of course not.
The difference between an abortion and miscarriage is that an abortion is a “choice” which is considered as murder because you are taking the life of an unborn child. A miscarriage is an act of nature which is not a “choice”, the decision rests within God’s hands and not the woman who wanted an abortion. The baby died of natural causes, not through someone taking its life.
Look at it like this: you get into a vehicle drunk and get into an accident which as a result kills four people. You made the choice to get drunk and get behind the wheel which resulted in the death of four innocent people. On the other hand the four innocent people in the other vehicle did not commit any murder if the drunk driver happened to die in the accident, because they were not at fault for the accident.
A cell is defined as the basic unit of life. so that means that from the moment a sperm meets an egg to make a dipliod cell, that is LIFE. I don't see why there is a scientific debate, when the definition is right there.
Yes, I agree.
The problem is that a lot of pro-choicers say, “Oh, well the fetus is not a person at that stage because it’s not thinking, not feeling, nonsentinent…”
However, personhood is defined as when something has the capacity to develop the ability to think rationally, express emotion, and make decisions. Since humans have a personal nature, they are persons. Therefore, since fetuses are human (they have human DNA and many human organs) it is a person.
So should humans be recognized as persons under the law? Yes, because humans are persons. Something is a person if it has a personal nature.1 In other words, something is a person if, by nature, it has the capacity to develop the ability to think rationally, express emotion, make decisions, etc. This capacity is something that a person has as soon as he begins to exist, since it is part of his nature (in other words, if he exists, he has it). Since humans have a personal nature, humans are persons. As for the fetus, since it is a human (and so, something with a personal nature), it is a person.2 Just as a cat qualifies as a feline simply by being a cat, a fetus qualifies as a person simply by being a human.3So, it is impossible for a fetus to not be a person.
Personhood: It is unjust and inaccurate to classify certain human beings as "non-persons."
By definition, humanity and personhood go hand in hand. Developing humans in the womb have an intrinsically personal nature and even demonstrate “personality” in many of the same ways that newborn babies do.
There are essentially two issues which must be resolved concerning unborn embryos and fetuses. The first is, “Are they human beings?” The second is, “Should they be recognized as persons under the law?” We’ve already established that there is no debate on the first question. It is a matter of plain, objective science. Embryos and fetuses are fully and individually human from fertilization on. If this were not true, if unborn children were not genetically-distinct human beings, there would be no need to even talk about rights of personhood. “Removing a fetus” would be the moral equivalent of pulling a tooth. This, however, is not the case, and so the debate must enter the political arena.
So should humans be recognized as persons under the law? Yes, because humans are persons. Something is a person if it has a personal nature.1 In other words, something is a person if, by nature, it has the capacity to develop the ability to think rationally, express emotion, make decisions, etc. This capacity is something that a person has as soon as he begins to exist, since it is part of his nature (in other words, if he exists, he has it). Since humans have a personal nature, humans are persons. As for the fetus, since it is a human (and so, something with a personal nature), it is a person.2 Just as a cat qualifies as a feline simply by being a cat, a fetus qualifies as a person simply by being a human.3 So, it is impossible for a fetus to not be a person.
This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children qualifies them as persons and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law. For more than thirty-five years, however, this has not been the case in America. The situation we are left with is this. There is a huge and singular group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. Is that not astounding?! It is astounding, but not wholly unprecedented.
There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying horrific mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which tried to create the artificial classification: human, non-person. This distinction wasn’t based on an honest evaluation of the evidence, but with an eye towards justifying a specific action. In the case of Native-Americans, they had land. In the case of African-Americans, they had labor. Classifying them as non-persons (even property) provided a moral framework for those in power to forcefully take what they wanted without compensation. Today, “unwanted”, unborn children don’t hold anything as tangible as land or labor, but their claims on those who would eliminate them are no less significant. They stand in the way of an unencumbered, more self-absorbed lifestyle. Once again this notion that human beings can be classified as “non-persons” is not built on an objective assessment of the facts, but with an eye towards justifying abortion.
At this point, some people define the term ‘person’ according to function (call this view the functional view of persons). That is, they say that something qualifies as a person if it can do certain things, like think rationally. But this definition of personhood fails. First, there are clear cases in which something qualifies as a person, but cannot do the things required of the functional view of persons.4 For example, a human person under a general anesthesia does not qualify as a person under the functional view of persons, since a person in this situation does not have the ability to think rationally. Two, the functional view of persons does not fit certain intuitions about persons. For example, if you had a cat that couldn’t purr, couldn’t chase mice, and couldn’t climb trees, you wouldn’t say that your cat isn’t a feline (though you should if you define ‘feline’ in terms of function). Instead, you would say that your cat is a cat that can’t purr, chase mice, or climb trees.5 In the same way, if you know a human that can’t think rationally (like a fetus, or a person under a general anesthesia), you shouldn’t say that this human isn’t a person, but that this is a person who (at the moment) can’t think rationally. In light of these reasons, the functional view of persons should be rejected.
Even though we do not qualify or disqualify something as a person on the basis of what it can or can’t do, it’s still worth noting that fetuses display aspects of their personal nature while still in the womb. That is, fetuses can do things that you would only expect of more fully developed persons. For example, National Geographic, in their video, In the Womb: Multiples, goes so far as to say, “As identical twins grow bigger, they’re almost always in contact, touching hands, faces, feet and gradually becoming more aware of themselves and each other.” Did you catch that? They’re becoming more and more aware of themselves and each other. Developing human beings begin responding to and interacting with their environment long before they are born. Dr Bernard Nathanson once stated, “I have put Mozart in a tape player and held it against a womb at, say, seven months, and the baby moved a little, but when I put Van Halen on, the baby was jumping all over the place.”6 The following testimonies highlight the remarkable social interactions taking place inside the womb:
"The womb is not a quiet, isolated place; life within it offers abundant and varied experiences that prepare the baby for the world she will meet when she moves out. We are learning to recognize how sensitive, able and already experienced a newly born baby is. She arrives able to breathe and feed, and occasionally can complain loudly. She is also able, in quiet and subtle ways, to respond to people and is so endearing in her actions that she can elicit the loving care she needs. Her competence has developed gradually. New means of observation have made it possible to discover how responsive and active the baby already is in the months preceding birth. Certainly she does not simply lie there curled up in the legendary fetal position."
"By midpregnancy the fetus has begun to explore its own body and environment using its hands. It often holds on to the umbilical cord, and when a thumb approaches its mouth, it will turn and begin to make sucking motions with its lips… The fetus is also using its sense of hearing for orientation. Its most familiar sounds are surely the noises of the mother’s digestive system and the swishing from her major blood vessels, but gradually the fetus also begins to perceive the sounds of the mother’s world, such as music and the father’s voice. The eyes of the fetus are sensitive to light, even though the eyelids are still shut tight… We have no way of knowing whether the fetus tastes the slight salinity of the amniotic fluid. Still, we have indirect evidence that the fetus tastes and smells, since a newborn immediately reacts positively or negatively to tastes that are sweet, salty, or bitter…"
"Until healthy babies were first observed by ultrasound in extensive studies in the 1980s while the mothers were resting quietly, it was not known that babies have such a diverse repertoire of movements at this early time, and perform these so smoothly and so frequently. It was a revelation that movements are polished almost from their first appearance and do not start in a clumsy and poorly coordinated way… The system is innately fine-tuned from the start and by exercise it is maintained in working order."
"One of the many things revealed by the 4D scans is the fact that babies have rapid eye movement sleep. This is a period of sleep when the eyes slicker around behind the eyelids. Later in life, this is an indication of dreaming. This gentle flicker of an eye could be a sign that the fetus, still with a month to go before being born is already dreaming."
"Does a fetus see anything? It is known that the eye can sense light as early as the third month of pregnancy. Sometimes when an endoscope is inserted into the amniotic sac, a fetus tries to protect its eyes from the light on the instrument, either by turning away or by using its hands and fingers."
"Twins, and other multiples, are known for a particular characteristic in utero. Scientists have even witnessed them playing games together… Scientists think their prenatal behavior [carries] over into early childhood."
In America today, there is only one group of human beings for which being human is not enough: “unwanted”, unborn children. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in a legal loophole of shameful proportions. They’re small. We can’t see them. They’re in the way, so we define personhood in a way that conveniently excludes them.
Ask yourself this, is it ever legitimate to categorize specific members of the human community as “non-persons”? If it’s morally reprehensible to kill a developing human being after birth, why is it morally permissible to kill a developing human being before birth?
The unborn baby is just as viable (able to live) as you or I.
An unborn human person is just as viable as you or me in any stage of development. Our basic needs are the same when we are unborn as it is when we are born and for the rest of our life. What are those needs? Food, water, and shelter. The mother’s womb provides these three things in a more perfect way than when we are born persons. Yes, they are administered differently, but they are our basic needs nonetheless. Absolutely no one is viable without those basic needs. So, if we justify killing a fetus on the terms that it isn’t viable without living in the mother, who provides food, water, and shelter, there is absolutely no reason to say that we can’t also kill living persons as well, because we aren’t viable without these basic needs. Abortion is an attack on the dignity of all human life.
“The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.”—
If you don’t know, I’m studying to receive a Masters in Public Health with an emphasis in global health. A lot of global health revolves around maternal and reproductive “health”. I put health in quotations because guess what I have to hear about ALL. THE. TIME.
This is driving me nuts! Every article I read has something to the effect of: “policies around contraceptives and abortion must change because it’s a woman’s right.” Why does no one think about the babies’ rights?
Yes, I agree that we need to empower women. Is taking away a woman’s gift, her ability to have children, really empowering? Let’s say a man is forcing his wife to have their tenth child (not unusual in developing countries). If we give her contraceptives, she just doesn’t have the child and the marital problems still occur. Or we could focus on the real problem: there’s something wrong with a man physically forcing his wife to do something.
Empowering women is telling a women, “You have the right to be heard in your marriage and not coerced into doing things.” The baby is not the problem. The communication between the husband and wife is the problem. It is unfair to punish the baby.
Let’s talk about the real problem. Let’s talk about how sex and responsibility. Let’s talk the lack of respect women have in the world. Even better, let’s talk about feminine genius! The dignity of women! How women have very a special place in the eyes of God!
Now isn’t that topic a more refreshing read than the ones I have? I think so.
Abortion advocates keep telling Pro-life Feminists how we should be ashamed of ourselves, but it’s the murderers of children who should be ashamed.
Pro-Lifers work to end the circumstances that create the perceived need for abortion, to provide material and emotional aid to women in crisis pregnancy situations, to end sexism, prejudice, discrimination, poverty, and rape culture—not “just to make abortion illegal.” Murder is already illegal. We want abortion recognized as murder so that the youngest children in society are granted their right to life.
The following resources, other Catholic Feminist resources, and more, can be found at Apologia 101 or in this tag.
“Forty years of legalized abortion in our country is too long! There have been too many innocent lives lost. Too many men and women wounded in body, mind and spirit. Too many consciences compromised. Too many Rachels weeping. And our culture of abortion continues to cause new threats to the sanctity of human life.”—Archbishop Jose Gomez (Los Angeles)
Religious Hospitals Better? Study Says Catholic And Church-Run Hospitals More Efficient, Provide Superior Care
Catholic and other church-run health care systems in the U.S. are more efficient and provide higher quality care than their secular counterparts, according to a new Thomson Reuters study.
The study looked at 255 health care systems and found that Catholic and other church-owned systems are “significantly more likely to provide higher quality care and efficiency” than both investor-owned and nonprofit health systems.
There was no statistical difference between Catholic and other church-run health systems, according to the study, which built on information gleaned from Reuters’ “Top 100 Hospitals” report.
"Our data suggest that the leadership teams … of health systems owned by churches may be the most active in aligning quality goals and monitoring achievement across the system," the report stated.
The report was short on specific reasons for religious hospitals’ success, saying that further study will be required to understand the differences. The performance measures included mortality rates, the number of medical complications, readmission rates, lengths of stay, profitability, and other factors.
The Catholic church in the U.S. runs 624 hospitals and 499 long-term health care facilities, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"When your mission is rooted in Jesus who healed the sick, only top quality care will do," said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. bishops. "This study confirms what many take for granted. The church leads in providing quality health care efficiently."
Thomson Reuters provides “information solutions” and data to businesses and executives in the health care, finance, legal and media industries.
“All human life—from the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages—is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person…If a person’s right to life is violated at the moment in which he is first conceived in his mother’s womb, an indirect blow is struck also at the whole moral order.”—Pope John Paul II in Washington, D.C., October, 7, 1979 (via amsilly)