This is a guest post by an abortion doctor. Her name has been removed to protect her and her family.

I’d like to share some of my thoughts with you regarding abortion. I’m a doctor who does both 1st and 2nd trimester abortions.

Although most of my practice is general OB/GYN, I’m something of an abortion “specialist” because most folks in my profession don’t want to be involved in abortions. I work for a large group where abortions are sent to those of us who will do them, so I perform literally hundreds of abortions a year.

First of all, I and most of my abortionist colleagues are women. Most of us are Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians. Almost all of us are mothers. I continued to perform abortions late into my own pregnancies, and you could literally see the appreciation in the eyes of my patients, knowing that I accepted and supported their reproductive choice.

I rarely tell anyone but my closest friends and family that I do abortions because I don’t want to risk myself or my family. Those crazies out there scare me.

Who Gets Abortions and Why?

We all know that anti-abortionists aren’t really “pro-life,” they are “pro-forced birth.” They make huge assumptions about who the women are who actually have abortions. They think that all the women who have abortions are just young flaky women who have no concern for the life of the embryo/fetus they are aborting. They couldn’t be more wrong.

Most of the women seeking early abortion are either very young or in the late part of their reproductive life. The youngsters are often coerced into unwanted pregnancies by their partners, or they didn’t think or know that they could get pregnant. Some of the older women think they couldn’t get pregnant because they were “too old.”

The decision to have an abortion is an agonizing decision, that few women choose lightly. They will be criticized for whatever decision they make. What kind of terrible mother could kill her own child? What kind of terrible mother could give her child away to strangers? What kind of terrible mother would keep a child she can’t afford to care for?

Did you know that half of the abortions done in this country are done because of birth control failure?

The “pro-coerced birthers” think that these are immoral women who should be punished for their (sex) sins with an innocent child. Then they complain about “welfare mothers” who need money to support their children. Those “precious babies” become children who they don’t want to feed. Aren’t Christians supposed to provide charity for those who need it? Worse then that, they don’t want to use federal funds to provide effective contraception or abortions for poor women. They just want to keep punishing women. Of course, if it’s one of their own, she just “made a mistake, she’s really a good girl.” Abortions happen in the fundie community too, don’tcha know.

Did you know that 1/3 of women who have abortions had a partner who sabotaged their birth control method? This is true domestic violence.

Women who have abortions come from all walks of life. This is not a phenomenon of only the inner city. Many are educated, and most of them are just plain middle class people.

The 1st trimester and early 2nd trimester abortions are most frequently done as elective abortions for unwanted pregnancies. I don’t like to do elective terminations after 22 weeks because of the viability issue. Late 2nd trimester pregnancies are very different.

Virtually all of the late 2nd trimester abortions I do are for fetal anomalies, fetal deaths, and for maternal health reasons. These poor souls really wanted their babies. They are in deep mourning because of the loss of their children. They come in deep grief, many times feeling guilty because they are “killing” their loved and wanted children. They worry if the baby will feel the abortion, and they don’t want their child to suffer.

Performing Abortions

Many folks wonder what it’s like to perform abortions. First trimester abortions (dilation and curettage, D&C) are very unremarkable. Our patients are awake but sedated. The procedure is performed with a suction curette (hard plastic tube), and in the hands of an experienced abortionist, suctioning out the pregnancy lasts less than a minute. The “products of conception” come out as just a mass of undefined tissue about the size of a golf ball. No thunder and lightning. Most patients have worked themselves up to have it be a long, grueling process, but are shocked at how short the procedure is.

2nd trimester abortions are very different. The later procedure is much more difficult and riskier for the mom, hence the limited number of us who actually do them. They are also unpleasant, because the procedure (dilation and evacuation, D&E) involves pulling out the baby in pieces. That all being said, the procedure (in the hands of an expert) is much safer than inducing the delivery, and has a much lower complication rate that the induction does. Many of these poor parents don’t want to be awake for the birth of the child they are going to lose, and just prefer to lose the child under general anesthesia.

I’ve never done the famous “D&X” (dilation and extraction, “partial birth abortion”) procedure. This was the one that was outlawed because opponents thought it was too horrible of a procedure. The concept was to try to deliver the baby intact, but the brain matter was suctioned out to allow the delivery of the head through the cervix. This procedure was designed so that the parents of the child could hold an intact baby, back of the head covered up, after a surgical abortion. Not because we horrible abortionists love to torture babies and then kill them.

Why Do I Perform Abortions?

I would be the happiest person in the world to never do another abortion again. So why do I do them? Because pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies are willing to risk just about anything, including almost killing themselves, in order to try to end unwanted pregnancies.

I remember reading some statistics comparing abortions in the U.S. and Mexico, before they were legal there. About the same number of abortions were done in each country, just over 1 million abortions a year. In the U.S. about 10 women died as a result of legal abortion. In Mexico, about 10,000 women per year died as a result of illegal abortions. 10,000 women who were mothers, sisters, daughters, wives. Not pre-viable fetuses.

There’s excellent evidence that in countries where women control their reproduction, the families are more prosperous. Funny that, women knowing when it’s a good or a bad time to add a child to their family.

You would never pick out an abortionist in the crowd. We would probably be the last people you would figure. We are the kindest, most compassionate people you would wish to meet. We are, however, very passionate about protecting the lives and reproductive rights of our patients.

Last time I checked, abortion was legal in this country. But I can tell you that the people who oppose abortion have no feelings of any kind for the poor women who have to make the terrible decision to end a pregnancy for whatever reason. They want to end abortion because they love those theoretical innocent children.

Oh, yeah, forgot that we are all born sinners. Maybe they aren’t such great babies after all.


Views: 16639

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Great post. The "pro-lifers" aren't pro-life at all. If they were pro life, they'd stop killing doctors at abortion clinics. Christians are the scourge of the Earth. They are scum. If I didn't believe in the first amendment, I'd be all for outlawing religion entirely in this country. Religion causes most of the world's ills.
O ya, gonna go to the church and round up the crew for the weekly abortion doctor killing! Yee Haw!

I agree with the last part though, the world would be a better place without religion. Christians and all other people of faith have a lot of bad views, but I wouldn't call them scum.
C Lo
I'm starting another response over here, because we are out of room on answering tabs. (The can only move over so far on each screen.)

So here we are.
I think I've responded to all of your answers, but I may have missed some in the disorganized mess it became. If I did, please let me know.
I noticed that when I called you out on twisting my words, you simply ignored it. #2
Yet then again, you tried to manifest some weird ass hatred of poor people on me again (or hatred of fetuses, I'm honestly not sure where you are going with it.) So let me clarify for you:
Just because I say a fetus is a lump of tissue that looks like a squid does not mean I hate any economic demography or the fetus itself. I am a deep sea diver with a background in human physiology and dive medicine. More things look like squids (or other sea life) to me than they do to most. That isn't an insult. Neither is calling it what it is... a lump of tissue. That's the medical community's take on it, too. If I were calling it malignant tumor or a sickening cancer, then it might carry some emotional connection. But that isn't the case. I am approaching it from a neutral standpoint, but you are trying to use that neutrality as some kind of ammunition against me, all the while you are actually guilty of what you're accusing me of.
YOU are the one that keeps using terms like 'baby' and 'innocent' and depicting over emotive "details" of medical procedures that, from your words sound much more horrific than they actually are.
So here is the deal.
I've got the medical community on my side. You don't.
Until you do, or until you can offer some proof that a fetus is an 'innocent baby' I want you to stop using that term or all terms like it.
Not because I find it particularly offensive.. and not because I think you are going to sway other people in this discussion with it (you've done a shitty job so far, anyway.)... but because it seems to me most of your arguments are based on taking a life or not, and until you prove that it IS actually a life, you can't logically use those arguments. They do not apply to you.
Focus on what does, or bow out.
Define your terms. Use the proper terminology and back up your words.
If you can't manage that, then fuck off....
because the whole 'it's alive, it has a soul, it's sacred, it's innocent,' whatever argument is heard by us a thousand times a day-
By theists.
You aren't offering anything new. You aren't offering a fresh perspective. All you've managed to do is puke out the unproven claims of people that have a religious agenda.
Those claims have been denounced before by the guys in white lab coats. These are rehashed arguments that we've won in the legal sphere and medical community.
Either offer us something new, something unique or something original or quit wasting my time.
Ha, thanks. I couldn't find a reply button. I'll try to transfer in a second. Call me Josh.

Deborah, wow that's messed up, whatever, I'll ignore it. The process of evolution created human beings and all other life. Is there a problem with that sentence? We are a result of evolution, do you take issue with that?

Being gay isn't a choice, but the lifestyle is. You can choose whether or not you want to come out as a homosexual. Do I have to act on my heterosexual urges? That's the choice I was referring to.

What I'm saying about sex and evolution is this: From are micro stand point as individual humans, sex is for pleasure. From a macro perspective, sex is about reproduction. I wouldn't say that the earth is "nearing capacity", but I would appreciate less humans, this does not mean murder though.

Fact: When you have sex, one of the most prevalent consequences is the conception of a child. YOUR crowd was the one who said it was a punishment. not me. SEX >>> CHILD, can we all follow along on this logic?

now to respond to the above paragraph:

Thanks for clarifying, I recently ran a response to the medical community argument. check for it.

I never said anything about a soul or sacredness.

Take a chill pill or something, you sound way too tense.
Choosing the gay lifestyle? Micro and Macro evolution? Personhood at conception? Purpose in evolution?

C'mon, are you sure you aren't a theist?

Fact: When you have sex, one of the most prevalent consequences is the conception of a child. YOUR crowd was the one who said it was a punishment. not me. SEX >>> CHILD, can we all follow along on this logic?

But you also get pleasure from sex, and much more often than you do a baby. So shouldn't we say that evolution "created" sex for pleasure? What about STD's? Maybe it is for spreading VD? This is following your logic.
There's (unfortunately) a strong social stigma against homosexuals. One may choose to either act on his/her sexuality, or suppress it. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, darn, you got me. I'm a theist! Jesus saves motherfuckers! Let's all go to church and pray instead of taking action! ya, no.

Without sex there are no offspring, ¿Comprende? That is the reason sex was evolved, for offspring. Name something that was evolved merely for pleasure. Eating? wait, that's for nourishment. You could say the way drugs give us pleasure, but they act on systems that are already in place for other things.

And STDs are different organisms, they aren't created by humans. They evolved on their own to be spread through something we humans do a lot of.
If sex "evolved to create babies" then eating "evolved to create crap."

You're not only wrong about the science and the philosophy, but your analogy is near sighted.
No, eating evolved to create nourishment, with crap as a result of that nourishment.
Sigh. You just don't get it. I give up.
Without sex there are no offspring, ¿Comprende? That is the reason sex was evolved, for offspring.
Well actually... Science has made it possible to have offspring without sex. Additionally there are some creatures in nature who produce offspring without sex.

And STDs are different organisms, they aren't created by humans. They evolved on their own to be spread through something we humans do a lot of.
Are you absolutely sure? Here's a bunch of organism that evolved to influence their host into doing something.
Um, yeah. I have a problem with your complete lack of comprehension of the process of evolution. As someone partway through her PhD in geochemistry, I think I've got something to say on the topic.

What you are describing is a teleological position -- one that involves purpose and design. One that usually accompanies a deep rooted belief in a creator.

Evolution is the word we use to describe the end results of gene transfer over a generation. There is no CREATION involved. It's a description of a process.

Your poorly constructed sentence simply belies a troubling lack of understanding of basic science.

Doesn't it bother you to know that you've (yet again), very publicly, proven your intellectual inferiority to yours truly, a woman?
O no! I've been outdone by a WOMAN! This is a crime against my honor! Mohammad! Get the acid!

Creation is:

"1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering."

You are assuming I define creation by The Creation. The current result of evolution is all the life we see around us? right? Tell me if I'm going too fast. Evolution is what caused us and every living thing to exist, it created life. I'm not going to say that we are the end result of evolution, because we aren't. But as of now, evolution is what produced us.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service