Saturday, January 09, 2010

A Tragic Anniversary

Seventeen-year-old high school student Sharon Davis died on January 9, 1983, in a hospital in Tucumari, New Mexico. She had been fighting for her life against an infection she had developed after a safe, legal abortion performed September 20, 1982 at 14 weeks into her pregnancy. The doctor had punctured her uterus and bowel.

For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:



To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.

17 comments:

Kristen said...

I love your blog, Christina! It's so needed. God bless you!

Kristen
http://evesransom.blogspot.com

OperationCounterstrike said...

Yesterday someone got run over crossing the street. Let's pass a law saying you have to spend your whole life on the same city block!

Kristen said...

Your analogy might work better if the following things were true:

1. Crossing the street takes an innocent human life.
2. You paid a big corporation to take you across the street because you couldn't do it yourself, and they first told you that it was a simple, harmless procedure, then blindfolded you before they led you across.
3. Then they didn't do it right and you got killed.
4. Then they said it wasn't their fault.

Seriously, your "crossing the street" analogy is just not a very good one at all.

Abortion takes a human life. Our country says every human being has an inalienable right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our other laws, we always put one person's life before another's liberty. In other words, my right to be alive is more important than your right to take the liberty of stabbing me. Abortion gets it backwards.

It also harms women, physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

OperationCounterstrike said...

Kristen:

RE: "Abortion takes a human life."

Yes, but if something, even a human, is located inside your body, then you're entitled to kill it.

RE: "Our country says every human being has an inalienable right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

You are quoting from the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers who wrote it did not care about the unborn nor about abortion. If they had, they would have written something on the subject, which none of them ever did. What you have made is not an argument about abortion, but a pun on two DIFFERENT uses of the word "life".

RE: "[Abortion] also harms women, physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually."

Sure, it harms VERY FEW women. If abortion were illegal, being forced to grow unwelcome pregnancies and give birth against their wills to babies they did not love would harm women very much more.

Kristen said...

RE: "Yes, but if something, even a human, is located inside your body, then you're entitled to kill it."

Who says? First of all, in more than 99% of cases, the woman willfully engaged in the act that put that human inside her.

Also: how can you justify the killing of an innocent human being based on where it is located, especially when it will be out of there, alive and in one piece, in a few months?

Since when is it okay to kill an innocent human because it is inconveniencing you by being alive?

RE: "The Founding Fathers who wrote it did not care about the unborn nor about abortion. If they had, they would have written something on the subject, which none of them ever did. What you have made is not an argument about abortion, but a pun on two DIFFERENT uses of the word "life"."

Even if what you say is true, I don't particularly care what they cared or did not care about. I know they gave the D of I to us, for us, and I know what I care about, and I know the right to LIFE -- and I only know one definition, so I'm not sure what you're talking about "puns" for -- is guaranteed by the D of I.

RE: "Sure, [abortion] harms VERY FEW women. If abortion were illegal, being forced to grow unwelcome pregnancies and give birth against their wills to babies they did not love would harm women very much more."

Abortion harms every single women who has one, because it harms her conscience. It also perpetuates the lie that a culture of contraception and abortion is empowering to women, when all it does is make it easier for men to use them and throw them away. This is why any culture that argues for promiscuity has to argue for abortion; it needs that back-up plan so it can keep having sex and denying the natural, biological consequences.

Again, in over 99% of cases, that "unwelcome pregnancy" came from consensual sex. So now it's time for her to accept the consequences of her actions, and if she can't afford or doesn't love the baby, that's what adoption is for.

If you have to choose between inconveniencing someone for nine months, or killing someone forever, any right-thinking person or society would choose inconvenience.

As for physical dangers of abortion, besides the risk of death from perforated uterus or bowel, infection, hemorrhage, etc., aortion also puts the woman at risk for future infertility and increases the risk of breast cancer.

All these reasons -- and more -- are why early feminists, most notably Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, were pro-life. They recognized that women were fighting for personhood from men, and then it was therefore unconscionable that they wield the same "might makes right" tyranny over their own children.

But Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, says it all much better than I ever could: http://peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm.

Kathy said...

Actually, at the time of the Founding Fathers, their scientific and medical understanding was limited, and it was thought that life began when the woman could first feel the baby, which is why that is called "quickening" (meaning, to make alive). After "quickening" it was considered murder to have an abortion. So it was unnecessary to take a detour in either the DoI or the Constitution and define the unborn as living, because that is what they considered it at the time. As medical knowledge and understanding increased, the point at which an unborn child was considered to be alive was admitted to be at conception. The laws on abortion reflected the medical understanding of when life begins, and to protect human life from the point at which it began.

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
SegaMon said...

I hope that others that post here will realize that talking to OC does no good. OC has made dangerous threats of harm to other people (specifically pro-lifers) on OC's blog and does so without apology. OC claims that pro-lifers are violent and then hypocritically calls for the harm of the same pro-lifers. OC even uses at least two personalities on this blog (OC and Chad). While I have substantiated my arguments with sources, OC has refused to do the same.

When OC states that an unborn child is violating its mother just for existing (for which it didn't even choose to exist when and where it does), one can clearly see the insanity that is OC (or is it Chad?).

SegaMon said...

For example, OC wrote in his blog the following statement: "Here's my idea for how to approach crisis pregnancy centers: give them booby-trapped gifts. It's pretty easy to treat books, dolls, blankets, etc. with poisons."

Nice and friendly like, right?

Kristen said...

I wrote the following before I read the other pro-lifers' helpful comments. Thanks, guys, for the warning. It all makes sense now! I'll go ahead and post what I was going to say, understanding that it won't make any difference anyway:

Alright, way to let your arguments break down completely. "No it doesn't." I guess I could reply, "Yes, it does," but I'll just let it go, since I've seen the research and heard the testimony.

As much as I appreciate your offer to stick your finger into my eyesocket -- which, by the way, is part of any intelligent, reasoned debate -- it simply doesn't work as an argument for abortion. But you go on to admit it's okay to be WRONG-thinking, so then it makes sense that you would compare an unborn fetus to someone sticking their finger in a person's eye. Which is to say, it doesn't make sense at all.

You still haven't addressed the fact that, except in cases of rape and incest -- which account for less than 1% of abortions -- the woman PUT THE BABY THERE. So she puts it there, and then this violating presence that she is responsible for deserves to be killed.

Honestly, anyone who can say with a straight face that an unborn baby is "not innocent" is... I mean, how completely screwed has your thinking gotten? How far away from truth have you gotten?

At this point I don't think intelligent debate is possible with you because you're one of those people who is willing to make whatever outrageous claims you can think of to justify abortion. (See above.)

I don't have the time to respond to this thread anymore, plus I think it's a waste of time, so I will let you have the last word with your response.

I will pray for you.

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
OperationCounterstrike said...

Kristen, maybe you can explain something to me. This has puzzled me for a long time.

I understand why the AMA, the ACOG, the WHO, the NCI, and the Surgeons General under DEMOCRAT presidents have remained silent about the abortion-breast-cancer link. These are evil, pro-abort organizations, so they're suppressing the research.

But why have the Surgeons General under REPUBLICAN presidents never said anything about the ABC link? Even while the other professional organizations denied the link, the Republican Surgeons General remained silent. Isn't it their job to warn people about the ABC link?

Do please explain why even Republican Surgeons General go along with the AMA denying the link.

Could it be... because they take their jobs seriously, and refuse to repeat right-to-lifist lies? Whaddaya think?

OperationCounterstrike said...

Kristen, RE: "She put it there".

And because she did, it gets to enjoy a short life from conception until abortion. Better than nothing! That's just so much gained for it. It has no basis for complaint nor for demand. Sorry but just as giving blood does not obligate me to also donate the NEXT transfusion the patient may need, just so, giving you a short life inside my body does NOT obligate me to also give you a longer one.

Maybe it had a spiritual experience during that short in-utero life. Maybe it clasped its little fetal hands together and prayed to Baby Jesus. Oops, can't do it--arms too short.

OperationCounterstrike said...

RE: Breast cancer. Here's a nice page which links to several of the mainstream medical organizations' pages. I'll quote, but if you go to the page, you can follow the links directly to the opinions of...

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: “More rigorous recent scientific studies demonstrate no casual relationship between induced abortion and subsequent increase in breast cancer risk” (2009)

The Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology of Canada “A history of induced or spontaneous abortions is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer” (2005) (pdf file)

The Canadian Cancer Society: “At the present time, the body of scientific evidence does not support an association between abortion and increased breast cancer risk.”

The National Cancer Institute: “newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.”

The Lancet: a “collaborative re-analysis of 53 epidemiological studies including 83,000 women with breast cancer” concluded that “pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer” (2004)

The central site from which you can click to the original sources is here:

http://abortionist-in-training.blogspot.com/2009/10/nothing-too-sacred.html

SegaMon said...

OC, you FINALLY provide some research to present to others. I'm happy to have seen the day! ...although the majority of us already knew about these mainstream organizations' positions already.

There are also studies which have shown an unknown risk, need for further study, and actual links, too (as I have shown sources before). This subject is far from answered completely which is the only thing that most reasonable pro-lifers claim anyways. But I'm sure you knew about those, too.

Definitely a step in the right direction, OC. Congrats.

SegaMon said...

The next step for you, OC, is to denounce and retract your very violent and hateful statements. I'm waiting.

Kathy said...

If you profess "abortion is murder" then murdering an abortion worker is no better than what the abortion worker was doing. It's not incitement.