Saturday, June 18, 2011

Miscarriage is Spontaneous - Abortion is Intentional

Lately, and perhaps a lot longer than I'm aware of, pro-aborts are attempting to re-define the term abortion.  

When a pregnant woman loses her baby through no fault of her own, it is commonly thought of as a miscarriage, though the term 'spontaneous abortion' is medically accurate for this event. 

The term 'abortion' is commonly thought of as intentional, an 'induced abortion', but pro-choice feminists are trying to change that.  This is of course in an effort to make abortion 'normal and acceptable', unlike the intentional killing that it is.

When pro-choice feminists refer to someone who has had a miscarriage, they will no doubt include their knowledge that the woman had an 'abortion procedure'.  Get it?  If a D&C was performed because of a miscarriage, then according to pro-aborts, the woman had an abortion procedure.  The woman has lost her baby spontaneously, but the fems are linking that with induced abortion.  Anything for the cause, heh?  What of the millions of women that have/had D&C's that weren't pregnant?  I think I know the answer.

For the sake of understandable debate, let's leave the terms alone.  Miscarriage is spontaneous and unintentional, an act of nature.  Abortion is intentional and deliberate, an act by women and abortion providers to destroy the fetus.

I posted an article this morning about the blatant lies of pro-aborts, regarding Rick Santorum and his wife Karen.  The comments on that article, and the screenshots of various choicer's, validate my claims here.

As I stated in my last comment on that post(June 18, 2011 12:44 PM ), by pro-choice logic, a woman who gives birth to a full term baby, has had an abortion.  After all, the pregnancy was terminated wasn't it?

20 comments:

  1. I hope this goes through a least a few of their thick skulls. As a mother who miscarried at 7 months gestation, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of abortion zealots conflating abortion and miscarriage. Curettage after miscarriage is NOT abortion, nor is miscarriage. Abortion is an intentional act meant to end the life of an unborn baby.

    And by the way Null and Void, we also cuddled our daughter and spent what time with her we could rather than let some forensic doc dissect her. In your face, ghoul.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When pro-choice feminists refer to someone who has had a miscarriage, they will no doubt include their knowledge that the woman had an 'abortion procedure'. Get it? If a D&C was performed because of a miscarriage, then according to pro-aborts, the woman had an abortion procedure. The woman has lost her baby spontaneously, but the fems are linking that with induced abortion. Anything for the cause, heh? What of the millions of women that have/had D&C's that weren't pregnant? I think I know the answer.

    And it's a good answer. Again, you're operating in an intellectual vacuum where your own ignorance becomes the standard by which you judge everything that's even slightly unfamiliar with fear and loathing.

    The point is not to redefine abortion—as you yourself are forced to admit the proper medical term for what the layman calls a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion" and it has been so for hundreds of years—but to point that restricting the number of people who can understand and provide abortion procedures limits not only women who want to get an elective abortion, but also those women who spontaneously abort as well as the women who get D&C procedures for biopsies, treating abnormally heavy menstrual flow, etc.

    It's not as if the move to ban health centers from teaching medical interns how to perform these techniques is a wild figment of the "fem" imagination. (BTW, nice that you don't even try to hide your misogyny anymore. At least we know what we're dealing with.)

    I'd point out that this action puts all women's health at risk, but I doubt that would make much of an impact on you. It certainly doesn't seem to bother the so-called "pro-life" movement that the U.S. is 50th in terms of its maternal outcomes and that two of the three leading causes of deaths, hemorrhage and infection, can be in part traced to a dearth of doctors who lack the training in the surgical procedures (yes, the same ones used in abortions) which would often be used to treat these conditions. Keeping doctors ignorant as a condition of receiving federal funds is simply going to exacerbate the problem. This has gone far beyond a mere moral dispute to a war against women, and like most wars this too has a body count.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And by the way Null and Void, we also cuddled our daughter and spent what time with her we could rather than let some forensic doc dissect her. In your face, ghoul.

    So you decided to play dolly with a corpse and you're calling me a "ghoul". Okay, that makes as little sense as I've come to expect from you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps the fact that doctors are reluctant to learn the procedure has something to do with the fact that certain political factions want to insist they learn it on live victims?

    Have you ever had a baby, Null? If your baby died, would you immediately drop her on the floor and refuse to touch her? Many people who lose loved ones hold, hug, or kiss them after their death. What has AS done to you that you would feel the need to personally insult her family and try to use a very emotional event against her? Yeah, I can sure tell you care about women.

    If you really want to lower maternal mortality, and infant mortality (even that of "real" born infants), work to end elective abortion. Previous induced abortion is a risk factor for all sorts of maternal and fetal complications.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Null - Your last comment over the top when it comes to being cruel. You have no idea what Armored Saint went through when her little girl died. How dare you intentionally cause her more pain.

    Keep talking though dude. Your immorality is painting a picture of pro-choice, and it's an ugly one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. YCW - Pro-Choice wants women to have the choice to kill their baby, however they would have no problem forcing doctors to do the actual killing. Doctors know abortion kills humans, thankfully there are less of them money hungry enough to take part.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Armored Saint will get as much respect as she gives. If she wants to use my upbringing against me, which for all she knows may have been even more traumatic than her miscarriage, then she forfeits any right to be treated with any consideration.

    So keep talking, TAAG. Your hypocrisy is painting a picture of the anti-choice, and it's an ugly one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps the fact that doctors are reluctant to learn the procedure has something to do with the fact that certain political factions want to insist they learn it on live victims?

    No. This is complete BS. The idea that a medical intern would be allowed to just jump in and learn a surgical procedure by performing it on the body of a living patient is risible, and would be an instant malpractice suit in the making if anyone tried it.

    If your baby died, would you immediately drop her on the floor and refuse to touch her?

    We're not talking about a baby but an expired fetus, and I would do the normal thing which is to allow it to be taken away and humanely disposed of.

    And if you want to know what AS has done, let me tell you that she's not beyond using my personal history to try to wound me (and failing). Thus I am ill-disposed to grant her any level of consideration at all.

    If you really want to lower maternal mortality, and infant mortality (even that of "real" born infants), work to end elective abortion. Previous induced abortion is a risk factor for all sorts of maternal and fetal complications.

    This is one of those anti-choice lies I've been talking about. Researchers have been addressing this issue for over twenty years and at no time has there ever been any evidence discovered of a strong statistical correlation between previous abortions and subsequent fetal and maternal outcomes. Yet the anti-choice crowd takes this series of weak or non-existent correlations and confounding variables and pretends as if just the opposite has been demonstrated. The conclusion has even been strengthened over time, as many that had been assumed to exist (e.g. between D&E and subsequent premature delivery) were debunked by later studies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pro-Choice wants women to have the choice to kill their baby, however they would have no problem forcing doctors to do the actual killing. Doctors know abortion kills humans, thankfully there are less of them money hungry enough to take part.

    I have rarely seen anyone as cynically dishonest as yourself. You ignore the history of murder, intimidation, firebombing of clinics, and so on and then conclude that doctors in the U.S. are unwilling to perform abortions because of what you claim they "know" about how abortion kills humans.

    No, they know that abortion opponents kill humans like them, and that's why they don't want to start learning the procedures. Justifiably, they don't want to paint a target on their backs.

    Strangely enough, despite what doctors "know" according to you, there is no problem with finding a doctor to provide an abortion in most of Europe, and given the fact that they are not paid on a case-by-case basis, they aren't doing it to earn the big bucks either. The only variable that differs is the fact that there is a militant anti-choice movement that kills them for doing their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Strangely enough, despite what doctors "know" according to you, there is no problem with finding a doctor to provide an abortion in most of Europe, and given the fact that they are not paid on a case-by-case basis, they aren't doing it to earn the big bucks either. The only variable that differs is the fact that there is a militant anti-choice movement that kills them for doing their jobs."

      I live in Europe, Norway to be precise... And in Norway, if you want to work in women's care and don't want to do abortions, you don't get the job.

      Delete
    2. I live in Europe, Norway to be precise... And in Norway, if you want to work in women's care and don't want to do abortions, you don't get the job.

      Good. Why should any hospital pay a person their full salary when they only want to do half their job, whatever that job might be? My employer wouldn't let me get away with that, so why should theirs?

      Delete
  10. Should have proof-read.

    That should read "The only variable that differs is the fact that there is not a militant anti-choice movement...."

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Armored Saint will get as much respect as she gives. If she wants to use my upbringing against me, which for all she knows may have been even more traumatic than her miscarriage, then she forfeits any right to be treated with any consideration"

    Show me where she used your upbringing against you, because I don't see it.

    PS - If you want to be cruel and ugly, go somewhere else

    ReplyDelete
  12. Show me where she used your upbringing against you, because I don't see it.

    I quote:
    'Null'-your vendetta against the unborn isn't going to undo the (purported) abuse you suffered as a child. Your academic pinhead ramblings here do nothing to disguise your issues, in fact they highlight them. Get well soon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That wasn't 'using your upbringing against you'. That was the God's honest truth. You obviously had a difficult childhood, and you carry that anger with you every day. So much so, you have no compassion for what other people go through. As for the "academic pinhead ramblings".. you're a student, and you have been rambling. You have attempted to prove your intelligence by over analyzing every recent statement in this blog. The description fits.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I see. So ad hominem psychologizing is OK as long as it's attacking someone you disagree with.

    What was that I was saying about hypocrisy?

    Would you like to prove that I have no compassion for what other people go through? All other people? And while recognizing that compassion for what people have gone through doesn't necessarily mean I cannot judge their actions, as this would put us in the realm of radical moral relativism?

    ReplyDelete
  15. TAAG-
    "This is of course in an s to make abortion 'normal and acceptable', unlike the intentional killing that it is."

    Again, I hate to sound like a broken record here but that type of rhetoric is unacceptable and creates an environment that makes it acceptable to kill medical providers, bomb clinics, harass patients, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jackie - Excuse me. Did you say unacceptable? LOL.. So saying abortion is intentional killing is unacceptable, but actually killing a human fetus is acceptable? Wow..

    Abortion IS intentional killing. The fetus was alive, abortion kills it. Why hide the truth? Oh wait...

    ReplyDelete
  17. TAAG, thank you for your compassion regarding the loss of our daughter. Null and Void-or perhaps I should say Realtin-thanks for your compassionless demonizing-I sincerely hope you keep spewing here-you're a great example of the heartless relativism that is your movement. Babble on.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Armored Saint - I shouldn't be surprised at how heartless people can be. I suppose that's another symptom of the sick world we live it.

    I've already told null to keep talking, it's great PR for our side.

    ReplyDelete