MEDICAL Q&A

 

When life begins: The consensus from the scientific community

The predominant definition in medical dictionaries and which is consistent with the scientific data is life begins at fertilization/conception i.e. at the moment of fusion of sperm and egg. Although most pro-choice groups acknowledge life begins at conception, some pro-choice groups would have us believe this question remains unanswered by the scientific community or is 'controversial'. However, the scientific community has a tremendous overwhelming consensus on when life begins.

 

Basic biology textbooks give the following characteristics necessary for something to be considered as 'life':

 

1. Consists of highly organized systems

2. Ability to grow toward a higher level of organization with time.

3. Ability to ingest nutrients and convert them to energy (metabolism).

4. Ability to regulate its internal environment to maintain stability (homeostasis).

5. Ability to respond to stimuli/environment.

6. Ability to reproduce/multiply.

7. Ability to adapt to the environment.

 

From the moment of conception, the human embryo is highly organized, has the ability to grow toward a higher level of organization, has the ability to acquire nutrients and convert them to energy, has the ability to maintain homeostasis, has the ability to respond to stimuli, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide and grow). Even before the mother is aware she is pregnant, a distinct and unique life has already begun. To deny this would be an expression of a religious or philosophical viewpoint but would be decidedly unscientific, in light of the latest scientific advancements in human embryology. These properties which scientifically define "life" exist in neither sperm nor ovum alone but only come into existence when the two unite to become an embryo.

 

This is why scientists overwhelmingly affirm life starts at conception:

 

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion .... It is plain experimental evidence." (The 'Father of Modern Genetics', Dr. Jerome Lejeune, University of Descartes, Paris).

 

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." (Dr. H. Gordon, Chairman - Department of Genetics, Mayo Clinic).

 

“Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” (The “Father of In Vitro Fertilization,” Dr. Landrum Shettles M.D., Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Director of Research at the New York Fertility Research Foundation).

“Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” (Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, M.D., Professor, Harvard University Medical College).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei ... and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning of a human being." (Moore, Keith L., Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker, Inc., 1988, p.2).

"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).

 

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3).

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." (Dr. McCarthy de Mere, M.D., law professor, University of Tennessee).

 

"I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being." (Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine).

 

When pregnancy begins: At conception or implantation?

The predominant definition in medical dictionaries is pregnancy begins at fertilization/conception when a zygote is formed from the fusion of sperm and egg. This is consistent with the scientific data which shows life begins at fertilization, i.e. conception, therefore, pregnancy and a new life begin together. Some pro-choice groups claim pregnancy doesn't begin until a week later when the embryo implants itself in the lining of the uterine wall. This play on semantics is primarily based on politics and profit, as it allows abortion providers to mischaracterize technologies which can end a new human life before implantation without having to admit it "ends a pregnancy".

 

Pro-choice institutions such as the Guttmacher Institute (established by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have politicized this 'after-implantation' definition of pregnancy for this reason. However, since "contraception" literally means "against conception," any technology which ends a human life after conception cannot be said to be a 'contraceptive' but an abortifacient, as it doesn't prevent conception and causes an abortion by ending a human life which has already begun. Using any semantic arguments to justify the ending of a human life does nothing to advance women’s' rights but attempts to deceive and manipulate them for the sake of politics and profit.

 

William J. Larsen, PhD, made this point clear: "Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development." (William J. Larsen, "Essentials of Embryology", 1998).

 

Dr. Keith Moore, professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, and president of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists, stated the following in his medical textbook: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (Keith L. Moore, PhD, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed., 2003).

 

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." (Keith L. Moore, PhD, "Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th ed., 2008).

 

Dr. Thomas W. Sadler, Professor and Director of Medical Embryology at the University of Virginia, stated the following in his medical textbook: "Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote." (T.W. Sadler, "Langmans's Medical Embryology", 10th ed., 2006).

 

Signs of 'life': Does the unborn child meet hospital/emergency room criteria for 'life'?

Standard hospital practice requires the presence of a heart beat and brain waves to determine whether someone is alive or not. In this regard, the unborn child demonstrates the following:

 

1) At 3 weeks after conception (before the mother knows she is pregnant), the heart beat can be detected by ultrasound.

2) At 6 weeks after conception, brain waves can be detected by an EEG (electroencephalogram).

 

www.probe.org/ presents the following argument: "If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions."

 

 

www.ProLifePhysicians.org gives the following analogy: "If an organ donor from an automobile accident is on life support in a hospital, the physician cannot "pull the plug" and donate the patient's organs to others unless the patient is "brain dead" and his heart is not beating on its own. If the medical community maintained consistency with this generally-accepted medical definition of human life, then we would condemn every abortion after the time when the average woman discovers she is pregnant. Every abortion, by the generally-accepted standards of medical science, aborts an innocent human life."

 

If the unborn are living organisms, how do they differ from a mere clump of tissue?

Here is another scientific definition of an organism: "An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organism)

 

The DNA of the unborn, at the moment of fusion of sperm and egg (fertilization/conception), is not only distinct from the mother and distinctly human but also 'complete', with EVERYTHING necessary to guide development from inception of life to adulthood with hereditary features including skin color, hair color, eye color and personality traits. The unborn, from inception, immediately initiates a complex sequence of events in preparation for continued growth and development. This complete capacity to grow and develop results in the formation of a definitively human body, childbirth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, reproduction, and aging until death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism and meets this definition with ease.

 

By contrast, human tissue - a mere collection of human cells - will not exhibit coordinated interactions directed toward a higher level of organization. Thus, the scientific evidence demonstrates the following: At the moment of fusion of human sperm and egg, a new entity comes into existence which is alive, distinct from the mother, distinctly human, and a complete organism.

 

Medical textbooks agree that at fertilization, a human organism is formed:

 

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." (Ronan O'Rahilly, M.D. and Fabiola Müller, "Human Embryology and Teratology", 3rd. ed., 2001).

 

This is also why even pro-choice advocates admit abortion involves not just the removal of human tissue but actually involves "killing" and the taking of a "human life".

 

Faye Wattleton, previous president of Planned Parenthood, the largest U.S. abortion provider, said: "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus."

 

Ann Furedi, CEO of the largest abortion provider in the UK, said: "We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life… the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?"

 

“Fetus”:  What is the original meaning of the word?

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:  “From Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered.”

 

We should note the Latin root word “fetus” does not mean “tissue” as most pro-choice advocates would have us believe.  To refer to a fetus as a mere piece of tissue is either ignorance at best or an act of deception at worst.

 

Does the unborn child exhibit self-motivated activity, self-awareness/consciousness, and the ability to communicate - is it a sentient being?

From conception though birth, the unborn child exhibits sentient, self-motivated activities of many types. Immediately upon conception, a sequence of extremely complex and coordinated activities are initiated by the embryo in preparation for continued growth and development. As the baby develops, physicians routinely counsel would-be mothers and fathers to talk to their baby while it is yet in the womb, to read to their unborn child, and to play soothing music for the unborn child. Numerous mothers testify to feeling their unborn children moving to music (voluntary muscle movements), with consistent behaviors to specific types of music after birth.

For example, an unborn child may move calmly and rub their mother's abdomen to country music while kicking violently to rock music. After they're born, that same child will dance to country and hate rock. Unborn babies react and move to the sound of their father's voice, and after birth, will turn to their father's voice over the voice of another man. During abortions, they writhe violently and pull away from the abortionist's forceps, thus showing a reaction to pain or to the imminent threat.

 

Many neurologists believe it is possible for a fetus to feel pain, to the point of suggesting some form of anesthetic be given to the fetus before an abortion. David Derbyshire, a science correspondent for Britain’s News Telegraph, citing a poll taken among English neurologists, stated: “Many believed fetuses should be given anesthetics during a late abortion, after 20 weeks. Some also believe pain relief should be given for keyhole surgery in the womb." (news.telegraph.co.uk — March 11, 2003).

 

Given their restricted space and environment in the womb, unborn children display a significant level of self-motivated activity, awareness, and communication to their mothers carrying them and to others as well.  But communication goes both ways. Not only do they communicate with others, they accept communication from others as well. A pregnant woman’s thoughts have a physical connection to her unborn child. “Everything the pregnant mother feels and thinks is communicated through neurohormones to her unborn child,” states Thomas Verny, MD, founder of the Association for Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health (APPPAH) and Pre- and Perinatal Journal. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on the effects of prenatal environment on personality development. He quotes numerous studies, saying research like that from Austrian obstetrician Emil Reinold “…proves that maternal emotions are transmitted physiologically as well.” (Ref: 'A Mother’s Emotions Affect Her Unborn Child', James Goodlatte, https://www.naturalbabypros.com/).

 

Furthermore, other studies show unborn babies respond to their mother's mood while she is watching a movie, becoming quiet and still if the film is sad and very lively if the film is happy. (Ref: 'Study Finds Unborn Babies Respond to Mother’s Mood', Thaddeus M. Baklinski, http://www.lifesitenews.com/).

 

At the earliest stages of development following conception, it can be argued the neurological system is too underdeveloped to be considered conscious. However, many comatose patients are not conscious. Any pro-choice advocate who uses the criteria of self-motivated activity, self-awareness/consciousness, or the ability to communicate as the basis on which to confer 'personhood' or the right to life must, for the sake of consistency with abortion, also advocate for the right to kill those who are comatose due to an auto accident, for example. But they don't. Why? Because there is no moral or legal precedent for such a deplorable action. Should the comatose patient be automatically deprived of the right to life because they're unconscious and lost the ability to communicate? Did they 'lose their personhood' in that auto accident? Do we write laws to legally kill them? Of course not, because they're still considered persons - unconscious or not - and also in part because they may improve and awaken. Even more so with the unborn - except in rare cases, they will certainly develop and 'awaken'. So why not give both the same right to life? Once again, criteria prejudicially used against the unborn child - to define them out of a place of legal protection and into a place where they can be legally killed instead - is found no where else in civilized society.

 

"The fetus behaves in a much more complex way than previously imagined... During her odyssey in the womb she will smile, recognize her mother's voice and maybe even dream." (National Geographic, "In the Womb", 2005).

 

"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..." (Lennart Nilsson and Lars Hamberger, "A Child is Born", 2003).

 

"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." (Geraldine Lux Flanagan, "Beginning Life", 1996).

 

"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." (Lennart Nilsson and Lars Hamberger, "A Child is Born", 2003).

 

"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." (National Geographic, "In the Womb", 2005).

 

John C. Willke, MD, past president of International Right to Life (www.internationalrighttolife.com) and president of Life Issues Institute (www.lifeissues.org) presents the following argument: "Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus."

 

This testimony is from former abortion nurse Joan Appleton:

"Another thing that bothered me as I went about my work at the clinic was the fact that I had seen an ultrasound abortion. We did first trimester abortions. This was a late first trimester, probably second trimester. I handled the ultrasound while the doctor performed the procedure and I directed him while I was watching the screen. I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth." (See more at: http://www.prolifeinfo.ie/abortion-facts/providers/former-abortionists/joan-appleton/#sthash.LZUoPbm6.dpuf)

 

In a sworn testimony before a congressional committee in 1996, Dr. Jean A. Wright, a pediatric pain specialist at Emory University, said: "Preterm infants who are born and delivered at 23 weeks of gestation show very highly specific and well-coordinated physiologic and behavioral responses to pain which is just like older infants."

 

"…and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way."  (Professor Arnold Gesell,  Yale University; “The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind”, 1945).

 

Is an unborn child a part of the mother's body?

The unborn child, although attached to the mother by an umbilical cord, is NOT a part of the mother's body - as demonstrated by the child possessing their own DNA - distinct from the mother and father - and distinct from any human being that has previously existed (except in the case of identical twins in which both entities are identical to each other but still distinct from the mother and father). Their distinct DNA scientifically defines them as an individual. This distinct entity comes into existence at the moment of fertilization when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum and becomes a zygote, in the upper portion of the fallopian tube. This new life comes into existence 1 week PRIOR to implantation onto the uterine wall. And as early as 21 days after fertilization, the baby's heart has begun to beat his or her own unique blood-type, often different than the mother's.

 

Also, fetal surgeons give recognition to the unborn child as a separate entity by providing anesthesia and corrective surgery, not to the mother, but to the child. Yes, the unborn child is dependent upon the mother for nutrition but this does not imply the child is a part of the mother's body nor diminish his or her humanity, but proves it.

 

The science of immunology also proves beyond a doubt the mother and baby are two biologically distinct entities. The developing child produces a very specific enzyme called indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, or “IDO,” which suppresses the mother’s T-cell reaction and allows pregnancy to proceed. Without IDO, the mother's immune system would identify the baby as 'foreign' and mount a killer T-cell attack - similar to what would happen if the mother's immune system rejected an incompatible organ transplant, for example. This shows that the mother's immune system 'knows' the baby is not a part of her body. But it is not until day 6 after conception that IDO production begins. Why day 6? Because day 6 is in preparation for day 7, when the new embryo first attaches itself to its mother’s womb and this is exactly the time when the mother’s killer T-cells would normally begin to attack and reject it—if not for the amazing protection already provided by IDO production on the previous day. (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/10/04/september-2005-creation-magazine-preview).

 

The National Geographic states the following in their video: "The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated." (National Geographic, "In the Womb", 2005).

 

Even pro-choice advocates agree the unborn child is a separate entity from the mother. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America and medical director of the largest abortion clinic in America, said: "There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole."

 

Should the unborn be considered human beings or just human?

An organism is defined as a living being as shown by this definition of an organism: "An individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organism)

 

The unborn, from inception, is comprised of a complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry on the activities of life by separately-functioning but mutually dependant organs, and therefore meets all of the scientific criteria of an organism - i.e. a LIVING BEING - and in this case, a human being. This definition of a 'human organism' or 'human being', starting the moment the sperm enters an egg, is a scientific universally-accepted classification. Because all of the requirements and criteria are met for the scientific definition of "organism", the unborn are human organisms and therefore, living and fully human, beings - regardless of gestational age.

 

Abortion is the taking of the life of a human being. Historically, no civilized society has ever permitted one human being from intentionally harming or taking the life of another innocent human being, much less an adult forcing their will over a completely helpless and innocent unborn child to the point of killing that child.

 

As modern medicine advances, the humanity of the unborn child has become scientifically undeniable:

 

- At 3 weeks after conception (usually before the mother knows she is pregnant), the child's heart begins to circulate his own blood, unique to that of his mother's, and his heartbeat is detectable by ultrasound.

- At 4 weeks after conception, the child's eye, ear, and respiratory systems begin to form.

- At 6 weeks, the child's eyes, nose, mouth, and tongue have formed.

- At 6 weeks, electrical brain activity can be detected.

- At 7 weeks after conception, thumb sucking can be seen.

- At 8 weeks, the child (scientifically classified as a fetus) has developed all of his organs and bodily structures.

- At 9 weeks after conception, a baby is able to bend her fingers around an object in her hand.

- At 10 weeks, the child can be seen making bodily movements.

- At 11 to 12 weeks after conception, the baby is breathing fluid steadily.

- At 13 weeks after conception, a baby's taste buds are present and functioning.

- At 14 weeks after conception, fingerprints form on the hands.

- At 20 weeks, an ultrasound easily shows the active life of the child in the womb: clasping hands, thumb-sucking, yawning, stretching, getting the hiccups, covering his ears to loud sounds, and even smiling.

- At 23 weeks after conception, the baby shows rapid eye movements (REM), a characteristic of an active dream state.

- At six months after conception, a baby's oil and sweat glands are functioning.

- At seven months after conception, a baby frequently "exercises" in preparation for birth by stretching and kicking.

 

Pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf said we must all acknowledge abortion results in an actual death of a human being: "Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die." and "...the death of a fetus is a real death". (Naomi Wolf, "Our Bodies, Our Souls," The New Republic, October 16, 1995, 26-35).

 

NARAL Pro-Choice America's president Kate Michelman stated: "...technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being." (Sarah Kliff, "Remember Roe!" Newsweek, April 16, 2010).

 

Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America and medical director of the largest abortion clinic in America, admits the unborn child is a separate human being from the mother: "There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole."

 

In his book "Practical Ethics", pro-choice humanist and Princeton University Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, writes: "It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and egg is a human being."

 

Those who attempt to justify abortion by claiming "an unborn child is not a human being" are using their own personal brand of politics, philosophy or religion, but such views are decidedly unscientific. Due to overwhelming scientific evidence, U.S. courts are slowly acknowledging the unborn as human beings. Currently, South Dakota laws require abortionists to inform women of the scientific fact that abortion will terminate the life of a separate, living human being. Although pro-choice advocates are against such full-disclosure laws, neglecting to do so would be unfair to women who want to make a fully-informed decision when considering abortion.

 

Is abortion an act of violence? Here are testimonies from abortionists...

Is killing another human being - whether an adult, toddler or unborn child - violent? Is the term 'violence' dependent on the age of the victim? Or is violence merely a point of view, depending on whether we are the perpetrator or the victim? Even if the perpetrator is in denial, violence cannot be denied from the victim's point of view.

 

Whether the unborn child's body is chemically burned via saline abortion or the child's body is dismembered by cutting off their arms, legs, and the head, these are acts of EXTREME violence.

 

This includes the brutal procedure in late-term abortions known as partial-birth abortion, which involves a baby being delivered except for his/her head. The abortionist then plunges a pair of sharp scissors into the base of the back of the baby's skull and inserts a vacuum tube to suck his/her brains out to collapse the skull.

 

In a testimony before the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin, abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell said, "It's not unusual at the start of D&E (abortion) procedures that a limb is acquired first and that limb is brought through the cervix and even out of the vagina prior to disarticulation (tearing off the limb) and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise up to that point."

 

In another testimony for the U.S. Supreme Court, abortionist LeRoy Carhart said, "When you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously fall out through the vaginal opening." He continues, "My normal course would be to dismember that appendage and then go back and try to take the fetus out whether foot or skull first." When asked how he performed this dismemberment, he replied, "Just pulling and rotation, grasping and ...rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be." When asked if the fetus was still alive during this procedure, he said, "Yes, I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see the fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound."

 

These acts of violence should be difficult for us to read about, much less continue to legally allow. Why are we repulsed by gruesome stories of dismemberment-murders in the news but not by abortion?

 

"You would just look in the buckets and see arms and legs. I have horrible dreams about that now. It was something you would see in a scary movie."  (Former abortion clinic worker Kirsten Breedlove, World Magazine, August 1995)

 

"From May to November 1988, I worked for an abortionist. He specializes in third trimester killings. I witnessed evidence of the brutal, cold blooded murder of over 600 viable, healthy babies at seven, eight and nine months gestation. A very, very few of these babies, less than 2%, were handicapped...I thought I was pro-choice and I was glad to be working in an abortion clinic. I thought I was helping provide a noble service to women in crisis... I was instructed to falsify the age of the babies in medical records. I was required to lie to the mothers over the phone, as they scheduled their appointments, and to tell them that they were not 'too far along.’  Then I had to note, in the records that Dr. Tiller's needle had successfully pierced the walls of the baby's heart, injecting the poison what brought death... Mine was the agony of a participant, however reluctant, in the act of prenatal infanticide."  (Luhra Tivis quoted in "Where is the Real Violence?", Celebrate Life, Sept/Oct 1994)

 

What if the mother's life is in danger (ectopic pregnancy)?

For ectopic pregnancies where the fetus starts to develop in the fallopian tube with the risk of rupture and hemorrhage, the corrective surgery (removal of the fallopian tube) should be given to save the mother. The surgery would result in the unintentional death of the unborn baby - unintentional in that the surgery was necessary to save the mother.

 

Also, if the mother dies, the baby dies. Saving the mother saves one life while the unborn child would die in either case, regardless of whether the mother lived or died, and whether the corrective surgery was performed or not.

 

However, as most physicians know, 99% of all abortions are not done for the mother's health at all but are performed on healthy mothers of healthy children. Statistics from the CDC (2003–2007) show there are approximately 0.5 maternal deaths from an ectopic pregnancy for every 100,000 live births. Most ectopic pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Ectopic Pregnancy Mortality - Florida, 2009–2010," 2/17/2012).

 

Why do pro-choice advocates appeal to the rare case when the mother's life is in danger?

Apart from this rare scenario, there is no merit or justification to take the life of any child, either outside or inside the womb.

 

Also, saving a mother's life has always been given the greatest priority by pro-life advocates. Making an appeal to a view already espoused and supported by pro-life advocates is redundant and unnecessary. Furthermore, any claim that pro-life advocates don't agree with this or don't care about the mother's life are patently false.

 

Nonetheless, pro-choice advocates continue to appeal to this exceptional situation because, apart from this solitary justified case for abortion, the only philosophical appeal remaining for the 99% of abortions performed on healthy mothers and healthy children, is the personal freedom to kill - a decidedly less noble sentiment than saving a mothers' life. This tactic is nothing more than a deceptive smokescreen by pro-choice advocates.

 

"Intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion." (Dr. Mary Davenport, OB/GYN)

 

Real cases where the mother's life is in danger: An abortionist's testimony...

The deception about this pro-choice argument is when a mother's life is in danger due to her pregnancy, there is not enough time to perform an abortion since this situation requires a late-term complicated abortion - a procedure which takes days - way too long to save the mother. In these cases, an emergency C-section is required, not an abortion. This not only saves the life of the mother but - much to the chagrin of pro-choice advocates - saves the baby as well.

 

Here is a testimony given by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino before a U.S. House subcommittee in May 17, 2012. He said, "I want to make a comment on the claims that I often hear that we must keep abortion legal in order to save women’s lives, or prevent grave physical health damage, in cases of acute conditions that can and do arise in pregnancy. Albany Medical Center, where I worked for over seven years, is a tertiary referral center that accepts patients with life-threatening conditions related to or caused by pregnancy. I personally treated hundreds of women with such conditions in my tenure there. There are several conditions that can arise or worsen, typically during the late second or third trimester of pregnancy, that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or “terminating” the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be lifesaving, but “terminating a pregnancy” does not necessarily mean “abortion.” I maintain that abortion is seldom if ever a useful intervention in these cases. Here is why: Before a Suction D&E (abortion) procedure can be performed, the cervix must first be sufficiently dilated. In my practice, this was accomplished with serial placement of laminaria. Laminaria is a type of sterilized seaweed that absorbs water over several hours and swells to several times its original diameter. Multiple placements of several laminaria at a time are absolutely required prior to attempting a suction D&E. In the mid-second trimester, this requires approximately 36 hours to accomplish. If one were to use the alternate method defined in federal law as Partial-Birth Abortion, this process requires three days, as explained by Dr. Martin Haskell in his 1992 paper that first described this type of abortion.”

 
Dr. Anthony Levatino continues, “In cases where a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death or grave physical injury, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke. This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well. This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero." (Ref: 'The most heartrending abortion testimony you’ll ever hear, from a former abortionist', John Jalsevac, May 29, 2012. http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/the-most-heartrending-abortion-testimony-youll-ever-hear-from-a-former-abor/).

 

Referring to the topic of a "dangerous" pregnancy, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, "Partial birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother." He echoed what all other physicians have already known, that is, late-term pregnancy abortions (partial birth abortions) are not necessary at all to save the mother since she can have a C-section to remove and save the child. Partial birth abortions are specifically designed to kill the unborn child while providing no medical benefit to the mother whatsoever.

 

Looking back at his vast experience as a surgeon, he also wrote, "In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life."

 

Pro-choice advocate Dr. Alan Guttmacher admitted, "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life."

 

Why do physicians recommend abortions when the mother needs chemo or is inadvertently given a medication which is harmful to the unborn baby?

Medical science does not require the intentional killing of an unborn baby possibly harmed by medication inadvertently taken by the mother. Abortion in such cases is only done for the convenience of the physician who wants to remove the possibility of a legal suit or for the mother who doesn't want a "less-than-perfect" baby.

 

In cases when a mother with cancer needs chemotherapy or other medications which might kill or damage the baby, the therapy should be given to save the mother without intentionally killing the baby. If the baby dies or is injured in the process, this outcome is unintentional and the physician did everything possible to save both lives. Abortion prior to treating the mother is not necessary to save her in such cases. To intentionally kill the unborn baby because of the possible harmful effects of chemotherapy on the unborn baby is not justified. Should we kill any human being who 'might' be harmed by a medical procedure?

 

www.ProLifePhysicians.org gives the following helpful analogy: "If a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not!  Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare." Thus, any effort to supposedly eliminate suffering by killing the sufferer, and no matter how noble it may seem, is convoluted.

 

 

www.ProLifePhysicians.org gives the following testimony: "We are convinced that much of the pressure physicians place upon ailing women to get a therapeutic abortion is due to fear of malpractice suits. Two female patients have reported to me that physicians unduly pressured them into getting an abortion because their contraception failed and they conceived at the same time that they were taking a medication that could be very injurious to an unborn child. The motive for prescribing an abortion in such cases was not compassion, but completely selfish. The potential of a malformed or mentally retarded child does not ever justify killing the child, malpractice threats notwithstanding. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, even if you are going to get sued if you let them live."

 

What are some medical complications after having an abortion?

Operation Outcry (www.operationoutcry.org) has collected over 5000 sworn testimonials from post-abortive women on the harmful effects of their abortions. An abortion can result in severe medical complications later on; the risk of ectopic pregnancies - which is lethal when the woman bleeds to death - doubles in those with previous abortions. The risk for miscarriages and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. Most pro-choice groups are in denial about the risks and rarely mention their concern over these matters - if at all. How can this lack of concern over possibly lethal conditions be considered an advancement for women’s' rights?

 

Here is a partial list of post-abortion complications which can result in a significant level of pain and ultimately, death:

 

- Excessive uterine bleeding

- Intra-uterine infections, both acute and chronic

- Pelvic Inflammatory Disease

- Punctured or torn uterus

- Uterine scarring

- Weakened cervix

- Blocked fallopian tubes

 

Long-term complications and effects include:

 

- Sterility

- Increased incidents of ectopic or tubal pregnancies

- Increased incidents of miscarriages

- Increased incidents of stillbirths

- Increased incidents of premature births and associated birth defects

- Increased incidents of hysterectomies

- Increased risk for breast cancer

- Increased risk for uterine cancer

- Increased risk for psychiatric disorders

- Increased risk for suicide

Recently, the avoidable and tragic death of Tonya Reaves in Chicago, Illinois underscored the utter heartlessness with which Planned Parenthood treats their clients. The 24-year old woman went to Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood in Chicago for an abortion at 11:00 a.m. on July 20, 2012. By 11:00 p.m., she was pronounced dead. Tonya Reaves was given an incomplete surgical abortion that perforated her uterus. And when it was discovered that this young woman was hemorrhaging, what did this abortion clinic's 'caring' staff do? Nothing. And this inaction, from a Planned Parenthood clinic which receives almost $2 million per year of taxpayer moneys. Tonya Reaves was left to hemorrhage on her own in a recovery room at Planned Parenthood. . . for over five hours. Recently-released information also revealed when the staff at Planned Parenthood finally did decide to take the bleeding woman to the emergency room, they simply dropped her off with no one to care for her. She was abandoned at the emergency room with no one from Planned Parenthood to provide any critical life-saving information to the ER staff, as they scrambled to discover what was wrong with Reaves. It wasn't until later they discovered the severe internal bleeding but by then, it was too late.

For more information on women who died from an abortion, please visit Life Zone at:

http://www.prolifeinfo.ie/abortion-effects/women/women-who-died/

 

"In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazards as abortion. It is a commonly held view that complications are inevitable." (Warren Hern, Abortionist)

 

"The abortion clinics never accept any responsibility for complications. They just say it was not their fault. The concern is not the patient at this time. The concern is with taking care of the doctor and keeping his reputation and the clinic's [reputation] clean."  (Carol Everett, Former Abortion Clinic Director and Owner)

 

"[The few doctors willing to replace those who are retiring are] mostly physicians who have had difficulty establishing regular ob-gyn practices."  Regarding a clinic in Nebraska where a young doctor was brought in to replace an older one, "Out of his first six months of work, there are nine malpractice suits ... After it was apparent the guy was a klutz, they kept using him, and trying to cover for him, because they couldn't find another provider."  (Robert Crist, Abortionist,

St. Petersburg Times, June 3, 1990)

 

"[Abortion is] the dirty work of our field. The sad truth is that the people who moonlight at the clinics are grade-B doctors. They're not the cream of the crop."  (Pro-abortion M.D. OB/GYN, Jack Hitt, “Who Will Do Abortions Here?” New York Times Jan 18, 1998)

 

"Most physicians regard abortion as a stigmatized operation done by people who are otherwise incompetent and can't do anything else."  (Warren Hern, Abortionist, American Medical News, September 5, 1994)

 

"Abortion is still a very fringe practice. There aren't a lot of people who want to get into abortion provision... and the ones that we do have applying to us for training often have very dodgy histories and backgrounds. And if you dig deep enough, you'll find a death or two or a malpractice suit somewhere along the line..."  (David Grundmann, abortionist in Australia)

 

"If we see a doctor out there who's really hurting women, it's incumbent upon us to blow the whistle -- no matter what the outcome. But it's a real choice, because you could end up with someone worse -- or no doctor at all."  (Ron Fitzsimmons, Director of National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Abortion Report, July 7, 1994)

 

What about the risk of breast cancer for post-abortion women?
Studies including one published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health show a 30 percent greater chance of developing breast cancer in post-abortion women. (See Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J (1996). "Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 50 (5): 481–96).

 

One researcher explains, "If we take the overall risk of breast cancer to be 10 percent and raise it to 30 percent (and)...using the 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, we get 1.5 million excess cases of breast cancer. At an average mortality of 20 percent since 1973, that would mean that legal abortion has resulted in some 300,000 additional deaths due to breast cancer since Roe v. Wade."

 

He continues, "During the last 21 months, four epidemiological studies and one review reported an abortion-breast cancer link...One study included National Cancer Institute chief Louise Brinton as co-author. We count nearly 50 published epidemiological studies since 1957 reporting a link. Biological and experimental studies also support it."

 

What are some psychological complications after having an abortion (Post Abortion Syndrome)?

Women who have had abortions are at significantly greater risk for psychiatric disorders than the general population:

 

- 65% higher risk of clinical depression compared to women who give birth.

- 65% reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, which they attributed to their abortions.

- 14% reported all the symptoms necessary for a clinical diagnosis of abortion-induced PTSD.

- 60% said they felt “part of me died.”

- Post-abortion women were more than twice as likely as delivering women to be subsequently hospitalized for psychiatric illness within six months.

- Post-abortion women required significantly more treatments for psychiatric illness through outpatient care.

 

Eight weeks after abortion:

- 44% reported nervous disorders

- 36% experienced sleep disturbances

- 31% had regrets about their decision

- 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.

 

Here is the experience of abortionist Dr. Susan Poppema: "Sorrow, quite apart from the sense of shame, is exhibited in some way by virtually every woman for whom I performed an abortion, and that’s 20,000 as of 1995. The sorrow is revealed by the fact that most women cry at some point during the experience… The grieving process may last from several days to several years… Grief is sometimes delayed… The grief may lie sublimated and dormant for years."

Psychologist Wanda Franz, Ph.D., in March 1989 at a Congressional hearing on abortion, stated: "They report horrible nightmares of children calling them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood," Franz told the Congressional panel. "When they are reminded of the abortion," Franz testified, "the women re-experienced it with terrible psychological pain ... They feel worthless and victimized because they failed at the most natural of human activities -- the role of being a mother."

 

"I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and were just lied to by the abortion counselor. Namely 'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees (photos of the unborn in) Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression."  (Psychologist Vincent Rue quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimensions, October 1991)

 

Judy Mamou, speaking of her ongoing memories of her abortion, stated: "The sound of the suction machine haunts me to this day. I cannot vacuum a floor without thinking of my abortion."

 

For more information, please visit:

 

Abortion is the Unchoice: (http://www.theunchoice.com)

American Victims of Abortion: (http://www.nrlc.org/outreach/AVA.html).

Life Zone: http://www.prolifeinfo.ie/abortion-effects/women/

For a comprehensive list of possible medical/psychological complications resulting from having an abortion, please visit AbortionRisks.org at http://abortionrisks.org/index.php?title=Index

 

Is deciding to have an abortion a 'normal' healthcare decision?

Carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth to a child is a normal biological process. A woman’s body is specifically designed to carry a baby, and where the baby is - inside the womb - is where it belongs. The unborn baby is in the right place and needs our nurturing and protection.

 

It is neither an illness nor an infection as commonly mischaracterized by pro-choice groups. Abortion advocates have deliberately distorted this normal biological process into a false 'child versus mother' dichotomy.

 

Speaking for Planned Parenthood, abortionist Dr. Warren Hern referred to a human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition" and "(being pregnant) may be defined as an illness ... treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..." ('Is Pregnancy Really Normal?', Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9).

 

Abortion is the taking of a life of a human being. Deciding to have one's own unborn child literally pulled apart by an abortionist's forceps is anything but normal.  Daniel J. Martin, M.D., St. Louis University Medical School said: "The impact of abortion on the body of a woman who chooses abortion is great and always negative. I can think of no beneficial effect of a social abortion on a body."

 

The National Right to Life Committee (https://www.nrlc.org) has this to say about the normalcy of a pregnancy:  "Induced abortion is the premature, willful, and violent penetration of a closed and safeguarded system -- a system in which nearly every cell, tissue and organ of a woman’s reproductive system has been specially transformed and activated to carry out the function of sustaining and nourishing the developing child. Not surprisingly, any violation of the integrity of that system can lead to serious complications. Physical problems range from hemorrhage and infection to sterility and even death. Psychological effects range from depression and mental trauma to divorce and even suicide."

 

Does abortion violate standard professional medical ethics?

With the special skills, training, education, public trust, and privileged access to medical equipment and medications, comes a higher expectation in professional ethics. The abortion procedure - even the mere suggestion of it - violates these medical ethics at its core.

 

1) "Do no harm" is a basic professional medical principle. It means the medical provider shall do nothing which brings harm to human life. Abortion blatantly violates this ethic by unnecessarily and intentionally killing a human being.

 

2) Hippocratic Oath: This historic oath is taken by medical professionals promising to practice medicine ethically and honestly. It requires a physician or medical provider to uphold several professional ethical standards and principles. Here are two almost identical versions of the Hippocratic Oath regarding abortion and euthanasia:

 

Version 1: "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

Version 2: "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts."

 

"As a physician I’m trained to conserve life and here I am destroying life… I guess I feel guilty because according to the Hippocratic Oath you’re not supposed to do abortions, and according to the Maimonides Oath you’re not supposed to do abortions.  So how could you be trained and raised one way, and suddenly be told it’s okay to do it?”  (Magda Denes quoting an abortionist in “Necessity and Sorrow”, 1976))