Author Topic: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives  (Read 723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« on: May 19, 2016, 02:59:21 PM »
Babies Wouldn’t Die So Much If We’d Just Kill Them Before They Died

National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill published an editorial on the Huffington Post today entitled, “Abortion, Like Contraception, Is Essential Health Care That Saves Lives."

Let that sink in for a second. A procedure that’s taken over 50 million lives in the U.S. alone since 1973 . . . saves lives.
 
O’Neill’s “life saving” abortions
 
How does O’Neill get to the conclusion promised in the title, that “abortion care” saves lives? Easy! She ignores 50% of the people involved in every abortion.
 
The first place she looks for saved lives from abortion is high infant mortality rates. They’d be so much lower if more of those pesky underprivileged women would just get more abortions. That’s right, her solution to high infant mortality rates is to kill the babies before they get the chance to die!
 
From the article (emphasis mine):

We have a premature birth crisis in this country that can be directly linked to our failure to provide adequate contraception and abortion care. About half of pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended, and for those women who carry their pregnancies to term (more than half do), the prognosis is anything but great. They not only experience higher rates of premature birth, but also are more likely to have inadequate prenatal care, low birth weight and small size infants, maternal depression and anxiety.
 
From a public health point of view, abortion care, no less than contraception, is an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality . . .
.
 
To avoid the “heartbreak of infant mortality,” we should just kill the infants before anyone starts keeping statistics about them.
 
Again, from the article (emphasis mine):

. . . as more states like Texas and North Carolina restrict access to abortion care, more women are dying in childbirth or pregnancy, and more infants are not surviving to their first birthday.
 
They’re not surviving to their first birthday because you didn’t even give them the chance to be born, Terry!
 
Killing the poor would be an efficient way to reduce poverty, disease, recidivism, and any number of other problems, except that it’s wrong to kill the people who have problems in order to solve problems!

O’Neill mentions maternal mortality, which I won’t address in detail because it’s never right to kill someone in order to solve your problems, and so abortion cannot be a solution to the problem of maternal mortality. But it should be noted that the data actually shows that direct abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.
 
The Myth of “Abortion Care”
 
But, at its heart, O’Neill’s piece is an attempt to make the phrase “abortion care” happen. Planned Parenthood and their ilk have been using the phrase for a while, though apparently not everyone is getting on board with this bit of Newspeak, or O’Neill’s piece would not have been necessary.
 
“Abortion care” is yet another attempt to shift focus off the human being who’s being killed in every single abortion procedure. Abortion can only be called “care” if you’re not thinking about the person who’s being dismembered.
 
But controlling the narrative is at least half the battle in a culture war, so it’s imperative that we who recognize the inherent value of the child in the womb combat their twisting of language.
 
Don’t let the phrase “abortion care” go by unchallenged if it’s used in your presence. All that’s required for a pernicious phrase like “abortion care” to slip into the American lexicon is for you and me to say nothing.
 
Ask about what care is being provided to the child. Show the images of abortion victims to “abortion care” advocates, and ask what kind of care they would call that. Ask how killing a child so it doesn’t die solves the problem of infant mortality.
 
But whatever you say, keep the focus on the child in the womb, whose life is an end in itself, not a tool to be used to fix statistics we don’t like.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2016, 03:06:06 PM »
A fetus is not a baby. Just as a kit is not a model airplane. A pound of cotton is not a pair of pants.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2016, 03:11:15 PM »
You can keep saying that until you suffer a stroke....doesn't change the fact that a fetus is an unborn CHILD, as in BABY.  Calling the unborn child by a different name doesn't change that fact
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2016, 08:25:20 PM »
A fetus is not a baby. Just as a kit is not a model airplane. A pound of cotton is not a pair of pants.

Ah.

But a pair of pants IS a pound of cotton.

If it is a cotton fabric pair of pants, that is what it is no matter what size it is.

Ten minutes before delivery a fetus has everything it will have twenty minutes later.

Except unaccountably , the protection of the law.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2016, 12:35:25 AM »
You are beginning to understand reality.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7930
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2016, 02:11:38 AM »
I probly start this direction before. I'll do it again. Abortion was not exactly had legal beginnings to start with but the back alley demand just made it more accepted. But I observed thier has not really been much effort on the opposition beyond making it a negative act . Meaning in this forum I don't obvers objection with contraceptives but also no push to use them. Has it occered if we were more aggressive on using birth control the abortion issue would be not as serious. Remember it's a requirement for a woman to be pregnant to get an abortion. So maybe preventing a person to get pregnant might stop abortions. But not just singularly focus on abstinence. Somehow people do not know abstinence does not work if the person has sex. So that means abstinence does have a failure rate when you count the ones having sex. The missing component on that topic is addressing urges hence the failure

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2016, 04:24:41 AM »
Not sure how you haven't seen it, Kimba.  I advocate it all the time.  This isn't an issue where pro-abortionists falsely apply the notion that anti-abortionists simply don't want women to have sex.  What women do, with whomever and however many, is their business.  It's all about the unborn child.  Once that enters the equation, that life now gets priority, since its a living human, that has no say in the matter of their own life.  So, by all means, women are to use whatever protection they can muster.  Responsible women will even wait until their financially solid.  But if women want to be irresponsible.....do it with protection, at the bare minimum.  Demand it even from the guys
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2016, 09:21:13 AM »
.......................... Meaning in this forum I don't obvers objection with contraceptives but also no push to use them. Has it occered if we were more aggressive on using birth control the abortion issue would be not as serious.............................


  It is good to make the point.

   This is a good role for science , contraception should grow more convenient, more harmless , more affordable and give to individual women more control of their own lives.

    Unfortunately it has been the role of Government to make research in this field difficult.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2016, 08:04:05 PM »
The Catholic Church has been opposed to contraception forever. They favored laws against condoms and BC pills and tried to make them universal. Foir years, Connecticut and Massachusetts banned all contraceptives.
The government has not been as helpful as it could be. In many countries, even Catholic countries, a woman can purchase any sort of BC pill with no prescription at all, and at a much lower price than in the US. In Argentina, Mexico and Soain, drugs are printed "Precio máximo al público"  (Maximim price to the public.)
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."