love them both

Is abortion ever medically necessary? Experts say no!

Dublin – The International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare has launched a new website publicizing their expert statement on abortion and maternal health care. Through this new resource, doctors and medical professionals can sign the Dublin Declaration, which affirms that abortion is never medically necessary.

In September, the symposium featured a panel of distinguished experts from around the world, known for their work in the fields of mental health, obstetrics and gynecology, and molecular epidemiology. More than 140 medical professionals gathered at the event to share cutting-edge research and data gathered over decades of clinical experience.

Their  findings were released in the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare, which reads:

As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.

The symposium concentrated on issues of maternal mortality and morbidity, care for women with high-risk pregnancies, mental health, cancer in pregnancy, and fetal anomaly. Expert presentations addressed new therapies which involve the safe delivery of chemotherapy during pregnancy and the emerging field of in-utero fetal surgery. Many of these presentations can be viewed online.

Now medical professionals have the opportunity to sign the Dublin Declaration for themselves. If you are an OB/GYN or a pro-life doctor, please consider joining other distinguished signatories in affirming that health care should protect both mother and child.

  • Tmihaylov

    Excellent! Great job young man-keep up the truth telling! It will make them furious but don’t let them silence you. Be THE ONE!

  • One word rebuttal: Savita

    • If that’s what you think, you probably don’t know the facts.

      • Maybe its telling that the website you link is more concerned about the presumed public relations maneuvers that occurred after Ms. Halappanavar’s death, rather than with forwarding any kind of empirical medical evidence. At this early stage, it’s perhaps true to say that there’s not enough evidence to be convinced abortion would have prevented this tragedy. But it’s also too early to say it would not have saved her life. Two state investigations have been called. I’ll be waiting for what they have to say, not what pro-life forces are telling each other in order to create political and moral cover for themselves.

        • Steve Farrell

          Is anyone surprised that this symposium, which was hosted in a country with draconian abortion laws, came to the conclusion that the entire concept of therapeutic abortion is a myth?

          It’s beside the point as far as I’m concerned. A woman should have the right to choose, regardless of whether she feels her physical health is in danger due to her pregnancy.

          • sarah

            “Draconian laws” that tell you you can’t kill someone else, particularily your own child. How oppresive!

          • Steve Farrell

            It’s not so easy to establish that it’s “someone else” if the child hasn’t been born yet and is still in mommy’s tummy. Not that pro-lifers consider an insignificant thing like a woman relevant to the matter.

          • Ryan Mayer

            The last sentence is an ad hominem and will be ignored. The first part is simply biologically incorrect. What’s growing inside a woman is a genetically unique, living, human, being. It has its own genetic makeup and code, can be of a different gender than the mother, is alive and metabolizing nutrients, and will continue to grow unless he or she dies or is killed.

          • Steve Farrell

            Ryan, that’s not an ad hom. An ad hom would be “Ryan is a retard, so his opinion in wrong.” What I’m pointing out, and what your latest post verifies, is that you focus on the fetus and consider the woman simply some vague environment in which the all-important fetus develops. There is a peculiar belief that a fetus’s complement of chromosomes somehow make the woman nothing but a passive observer of the process of gestation. If that’s not misogyny, I don’t know what could conceivably be.

          • Julia

            There’s just a “peculiar” belief that parents are supposed to care for their children until they are no longer dependant on them.

            At first, the children are totally dependant on their mothers. Though the father can not care for the child directly while the child is in the mother’s body, he should have to use his body to work to support the pregnant mother and their child. Once the child is born, the child is still totally dependent on them for everything, and cannot survive on it’s own; they still have a responsiblity to use their bodies to provide the child with all necessary things. As the child grows older he/she depends less and less on the parents, so their duties to them grow less.

            This is what being a parent is – caring for your child as long as he/she needs it.

          • M

            You really are a moron. Only a man would have the balls to call a woman a misogynist.

            mi·sog·y·ny [mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-] Show IPA
            hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
            Are you trying to imply Julia hates herself and her own sexuality?

          • Angel

            This bit is not true. A huge number of fetus’ spontaneously abort, or are if you are squeamish about the term, are miscarried. What is growing inside a woman can be a number of things. A viable human is a small percentage of the possible outcomes

          • Julia

            Well, 100% of humans die, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to kill them, does it? The fact that many of them die naturally frequently at a certain age in life doesn’t mean it is Ok to kill them at that age.
            What is growing inside a woman doesn’t “become” a miscarriage. Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is the term we use to mean the natural death of a human fetus or embryo.

          • Evangeline

            Then why is it considered “someone else” as soon as its born? It was in the exact same condition seconds before its head popped out, was it not “someone else” then?

          • Steve Farrell

            I’m not the one who says there’s a magic point where the fetus becomes a human being. Obviously a baby just about to be delivered by a woman in active labor is human. But I can live with the ambiguity, and allow a woman a say in what goes on inside her body for the first trimester. Those among us who want total certainty and moral clarity can’t live with that ambiguity.

          • Julia

            We don’t believe there is a magic point where a fetus becomes a human being, either; we believe they always are human beings (I mean, what else would they be? cat? squirrel?)

            Lack of clarity is a problem when we are talking about matters of life and death. What you basically said what it is OK to kill something, even if you think it might be a human being.
            When a man is hunting for food, if he sees a bush moving, it is OK for him to shoot, knowing that it might be a person or it might be a deer?

            Argue that the mother has the right kill her child because it is inside her body, or argue that it is not a human being at all, but don’t hide behind the “I don’t know if it’s a human being or not, so I can kill it” lack of clarity argument.

          • Margie

            Once again you make me think. A Magic Point??? Hmmm? Let me ask you…What is the Magic Point between life and death?

          • Margie

            If a woman considers herself relevant than why is she putting herself in such a precarious position in the first place? I have a lot of respect for women. I happen to be one of them. What you sew is what you reap.

        • Margie

          Hmmm. It makes me think, would Christ have died if he was never born? Would you have lived if you were killed? Why did the chicken cross the road?

  • Steve Farrell

    I doubt that pro-lifers would ask themselves the same question about childbirth: technically, there’s no medical reason to have a baby, it’s a lifestyle choice. Abortion on demand and childbirth are among the lifestyle choices that women should have available to them.

    • Julia

      Oh, I agree that to have a child or not is a lifestyle choice. I wouldn’t force any woman and man to have sex. The problem is that once the baby is conceived, she and the child’s father already have a baby. Now what remains is how to they can best take care of their child, or to transfer that care to somone else as soon as possible if they do not feel they can adequately care for their child.

      Abortion is more of a “life-killing” choice than a “life-style” choice. There is a medical reason not to have an abortion – namely that it kills half the people undergoing the procedure.

      • Steve Farrell

        Once the “baby” is conceived, it’s a zygote. It still has to undergo months of gestation before becoming a baby. And since it’s still inside a woman’s body, it’s difficult to see why she shouldn’t have some say in the process.

        • Ryan Mayer

          Your use of terms is incorrect. “Zygote” refers to stage of development (as does “baby”). But “a zygote” is not what’s growing inside a woman IS. It IS a human being at the zygote stage of development. We know this because we can point to other things that are not human beings but that are nevertheless at the zygote stage of development, like a cow or a cat or a dog. 99% of the time a woman DOES have a say in whether a human being grows inside of her by virtue of her choice to have intercourse.

          • Steve Farrell

            Unlike you, Ryan, I believe that intercourse isn’t where female choice ends.

          • Julia

            Though, apparently, you do believe that male choice in regards to having a child ends with intercouse. (That is, unless you think the father has a right to kill the newborn baby if he doesn’t want the baby, because that would be forced parenting).

          • Steve Farrell

            Julia, civil as always. The fact that the woman’s body is where gestation takes place confers certain rights on her, it’s fair to say, that the man unfortunately can’t claim as his own.

          • Julia

            So poiniting out the flaws in your argument pointing out facts is now classified as uncivil?

            “confers certain rights on her” being able kill your child is not a right, no matter how dependant on you a child is.

            If the mother and her newborn baby are snow-bound for a week in a cabin with only solid food, do you think she has a duty to breastfeed the child (using her body) ? Or do you think it is OK for her to choose not to feed her baby and let it starve because the child has no right to use her body? What would you think of a woman who did that?

          • Margie

            Wow. You’ve actually got something right. The woman’s body is where gestation takes place and it does confer certain rights to the woman like think before you act!

          • Margie

            You have revealed yourself to quite the ignoramus. I wouldn’t doubt that you believe that intercourse is where the choice begins.

        • Margie

          Blah, blah, blah, blah.

    • Margie

      Holy Cow. You’re actually comparing life and death as lifestyle choices. I’m sure you’re pretty happy your mother didn’t feel that way.

  • A symposium of doctors based in the country where this woman died due to lack of choice calls abortion never medically necessary. Hmmmmm…..well I’ll be damned!

    On a side note, I just parsed the authors twitter feed and the word “homophobic” just happens to come to mind. He is also of the brain dead mindset that believes a much needed tax increase on the upper 2% is being done out of envy. Fox News talking points anyone?

  • bartskibeat

    The right of women to terminate a pregnancy has been law in the US since 1973. Those claiming to stand for the sanctity of all human life lost all credibility during the early years of the AIDS epidemic. They fiercely & successfully; opposed the use of any public funds for HIV research. The subsequent delay in the development of effective treatment options denied thousands even a fighting chance at survival. The sad irony is the fact that research into HIV is actually research into virology & immunology; two areas about which little was known. These endeavors have opened doors to medicine/science that we never knew existed. Many lethal or debilitating diseases will have answers found in such studies.Take a closer look at some of your senior advisers & you’ll find kind & smiling folks that are utterly devoid of compassion.

    • Julia

      That’s an ad hom argument, saying these people did this, therefore any other position they hold is wrong.
      This argument (even if it is true) doesn’t prove that abortion is OK.

  • Margie

    I am 110% Pro Life, unfortunately women today are becoming so very weak in knowing their true worth as a woman, knowing that “Wearing the Pants in the Family” doesn’t make one victorious, knowing that sacrifice is good, knowing that nurturing is a gift from God, knowing it’s not always about them, that they actually believe having an abortion IS saving their life. It is a sad, sad reality. Don’t give up the good fight!

    • ima


      Love to see your answer on this. Please watch this one minute video and then make the case to all of us that the Irish abortion law affects all women of childbearing age and not just the poor.

      Looking forward to it.

      • Julia

        Ireland would like to stop all women from killing their kids, rich or poor. Unfortunately, they only have jurisdiction over what goes on in their own country, so they can’t stop women going over the channel to get abortions in the UK. (where maternal death rate is much higher, BTW, and abortion is legal)

        If our neighboring country had laws saying that it was OK to do something horrible like kill you baby under 2 years old (a position that some pro-choice advocates have championed), does that mean the U.S. should legalize killing anyone under 2 years old, because otherwise it’s dicrimination against poor people because rich people can just cross the border and have their 2 year olds killed while poor people can’t afford to? Of course not; that logic doesn’t make sense.

        You can try to argue that abortion should be legal everywhere because it’s a woman’s right, but don’t try to argue that because one country allows it, their neighboring country must.

        Besides, it is just your opinion that abortion is good for women and therefore the rich have it better because they have money to travel to kill their kids. Many people would say that the poorer people are actually better off in that regard. If any one is being discrimiated against, I would say it the rich preborn children.

        • ima

          Julia, I think you have officially destroyed any credibility this website and the pro-life movement ever had with this post. Congratulations on the most cockeyed logic I’ve ever read. I can only wonder where you hear it–your pastor, make it up in your head–it’s anybody’s guess. I will try to play along as long as I can.

          Mississippi is a state which has effectively banned abortion. Success for them, right? Who cannot get an abortion now? If I have money I can just drive over the border. Easy. Miss. didn’t slow her down one bit. What if I have no money? Then I’m forced to have the baby. Unless I go to the black market or do it myself, but you don’t want to believe that messy stuff happens. Hey, it doesn’t effect you, right?

          So what will Miss. look like? Rich will have only the kids they want and can take care of. The poor will be having lots of kids. Some they’ll keep, some they’ll give up to adoption agencies. Now they need more food stamps and welfare. And the adoption agencies need more funding for the added kids. But the Rep. legislature cuts funding cause they’re all about spending cuts–Tea Party, remember? So, what will happen to all these poor kids the pro-life movement wanted so bad? I’m sure you’ll adopt them all and give them loving homes, right?

          (Incidentally, Mississippi has the highest teen pregnancy rate. And they teach abstinence. Draw your own conclusion, if you can.)

          UK death rates are higher because they have a midwife shortage, not for their abortion services. Don’t throw stats at me cause I’ll just look them up.

          You actually said a rich woman, with all the choices in the world, is worse off than a poor woman with no choice. You actually said that. Did you read that after you wrote it? Do you believe rich women are being forced onto planes and taken to UK hospitals and given forced abortions? Do you think this is happening? Because that’s the only way you would have discrimination. Where did I say abortion is good for women? Please point that out. The value for the rich is the choice, not the abortion. Where is the opinion you speak of? Using your logic, the pregnant Mississippi teens begging for food stamps are better off than a rich woman prepping her nursery for her coming baby. Again, it’s the choice, not the abortion. Stop listening to your pastor and carve the definition of the word “choice” into your desk. If you still don’t understand, I suggest you stay in your church and never leave–you are not ready for the thinking world. Personally I don’t think you believe it; you just said it to give me an answer, but you used the logic of a five year old. ‘D’ for effort, nonetheless.

          Show me the organization that advocates killing two year old kids. This is classic. I know you can’t, I’m just asking for fun.

          Please give me the name of your pastor; I want to investigate this guy and find out what he is putting in the minds of his parishioners.

          If what you say is representative of the thinking going on on this site, your days have to be numbered. They just have to be. There is no way this kind of logic can prop up a movement with followers. It has to crumble eventually. Unless you’re a fringe person in an otherwise normal place.

          Sorry to be mean, but this is frightening ignorance that can’t be healthy. If you had no answer, why did you even bother? I asked Margie anyway.

          • Julia

            So basically what you spent the whole of your post (other than the parts you were insulting me) was that dead children are better than poor children.
            Talk about destroying credibility!

            Also, have you never heard of adoption? Lots of couples are waiting to adopt a newborn baby, and pay for all the costs of the hospital stay, etc.
            Of course, people always have a choice do to horrible things, that’s why they happen. But that doesn’t mean societies should sanction those choices by making them legal.

          • ima

            It’s virtually impossible not to insult you. You just proved again you don’t read or have limited reading comprehension. “Have you ever heard of adoption”? I talked about it during the Mississippi story. Remember? You read it probably ten minutes ago. At any given time there are 200,000 kids in the adoption system. Why aren’t they all adopted? What’s the problem? They’re all ‘lives’, aren’t they? There must be more than 200,000 pro-life people out there, right? I thought you guys were huge. These kids need homes, now; why aren’t you adopting them?

            You clearly just get a rush out of people responding to your posts because you’re lonely or something and that’s okay. But you have to make an effort at connecting thoughts together. Simple logic. I talked about ‘choice’ last time and it appears you didn’t understand any of it. For no good reason I’ll rephrase, probably for the last time.

            Nobody in the pro-life movement wants to admit it, because you’re afraid of how you’ll be viewed, but your anger does not lie with abortion doctors, or Planned Parenthood, or the President. They are your scapegoats. Your diversions. If you folks were honest with yourselves you’d unload on the real target of your rage: pregnant women who walk into abortion clinics. After all, if they did not walk in, would we ever see another abortion?

            This is where you look down at the ‘choice’ definition you carved into your desk. It’s not about dead children or poor children. Not ‘pro-aborts’ or ‘baby killers’. It’s about these women making a choice that boils your blood. Blame the doctor, blame PP. Blame anyone but the real culprits. Cause if you do, you’re finished.

            Choice, not abortion. If you don’t get it now, you probably never will.

  • Shem

    I note with amusement that the picture on the sidebar for this article shows a woman holding a baby. Abortion, however, involves a fetus that’s inside a woman’s body.
    For what it’s worth, acorns aren’t oak trees either.

  • ima

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.” Why should I believe the group of pro-life doctors you cite, over The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?

    A leading group OPPOSING abortion, the National Right to Life Committee, issued a statement saying that its position is “to allow abortion if necessary to prevent the death of the mother.” If it is 100% correct to say, “We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women”, why hasn’t this committee adopted it?

    Joe Walsh himself said “I do of course support medical procedures for women during their pregnancies that might result in the loss of an unborn child.” Implies that even he believes the health of the pregnant woman and fetus are intertwined.

    Just because you find an organization that backs up your theory does not mean that theory’s true. It just means you’ve found a justification. But that’s not your job. Your job is to break through the agenda to find the truth and there is no evidence you’ve done that.

    • sarah

      The truth is, since the U.S. is officially pro-choice, the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is just as likely to be biased in its findings as the the Irsih medical consel is likely to be pro-life biased. There is no reason the author must choose the pro-choice biased doctors’ findings over the pro-life doctors’ findings.

      In Savita’s case, the president-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (a pro-choice country) said that the abotion would not have saved her life, but would have actually made it so that she would die sooner

      • ima

        So in your mind there are no medical facts, only agendas. I don’t agree. The pro-life movement seeks out pro-life doctors like these to bring credibility, and thus more recruits, to your organization. Much like a religion does. For example, there is no medical link between abortions and breast cancer. Do you believe there is? If you do you are under the spell of the pro-life doctor who created this false connection to validate the pro-life beliefs and, consequently, excite more people. Sorry if I’m the first to break this to you. You cite the FOG in India, which said in this case an abortion would not have saved her. Maybe they’re right. What do they say about 100% OF THESE TYPES OF CASES? Do you have those facts?

        Answer the question about the Right To Life Council. You didn’t get to that one.

        And if you have the time, watch this one minute video and then make the case to all of us that the Irish abortion law affects all women of childbearing age and not just the poor.

        I’m sure you have an answer.

        • sarah

          No. I didn’t say that there are all biased. I said that each is just as likely (or unlikely) to be biased, when you criticed the author for not using the pro-choice doctors’ findings.
          To rephrase your question, Why should I believe the group of primarily pro-choice doctors you cite over the findings of Ireland’s Obstetricians and Gynecologists, especially since Ireland maternal mortality rate is much lower than theirs (i.e. Ireland’s obestetricians are doing a better job than they are)?

          Actually, abortion and miscarriages do increase the chance of breast cancer. Seems like you just won’t believe any medical findings by people who don’t agree with your position.
          However, the breast cancer-abortion link is in no way needed to validate the pro-life position.
          Our position is simple: The preborn child is a innocent human being. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. Abortion kills an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
          Actually, though not necessay, it is much more helpful for your side for it not to be true than it is to our side to be true. Because your whole position is based on the fact that abortion is good for women.

          As far as the Right to Life people. Notice; it says “if”.
          As far as this quote : ” “I do of course support medical procedures for women during their pregnancies that might result in the loss of an unborn child.”” This is not an abortion. This is almost exactly what the Dublin declaration says. Did you even read the article?

          I mentioned Savita’s case because all the pro-abortion people are using her case falsely to claim that because of her, abortion needs to legal in Ireland, which is baloney, because an abortion wouldn’t have saved her life.

          • ima

            That ‘if’, Sarah, means it’s possible. A 100% impossibility would not include the word ‘if’. You would not say “We will pull her wisdom tooth IF it will stop her toenail from falling off”. See the difference? If they believed it was 100% impossible, they would echo the Ireland group, which they are not, and you have no answer for it.

            You didn’t answer about the video:

            Make the case that the Irish abortion law affects all women of childbearing age and not just the poor.

            Then there’s this:

            Views of medical organizations

            A number of major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, World Health Organization and the United States National Cancer Institute have analyzed larger studies regarding induced abortion and breast cancer. Their uniform conclusion is that there is no causative link between induced abortion and breast cancer.[6][10][11][20]

            The American Cancer Society noted with concern that: “The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer in women (lung cancer is the first). Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer.”[27]

            And this:

            And this:

            And your guys say this (notice their credentials):


            Joel Brind is a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College and is the primary advocate of an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. While Brind is pro-life and his goal to prove an ABC link, he has published papers in respected journals on other human hormone topics.[28] He has fought against the legalization of RU-486 testifying at a federal hearing that “thousands upon thousands” of women would develop breast cancer as a result of using the drug.[29]

            In 1996, Brind published a meta-analysis in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JECH) which was immediately criticized in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial for concluding response bias was unlikely to have affected their results, “dismissal of the study’s limitations, and their blurring of association with causation.”[30] The amount of attention the study received prompted a cautionary editorial by a JECH editor.[31]After Brind’s study failed to convince the scientific community of a causal relationship, Brind co-founded the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (BCPI) in 1999 with Angela Lanfranchi,[32] a surgeon and pro-life advocate. In 2003, Brind was invited to the NCI workshop, where he was the only one to formally dissent.

            Karen Malec, a former teacher and pro-life activist, started the Coalition on Abortion-Breast (CAB) in 1999 with help from Concerned Women for America,[5] a conservative Christian U.S. political action group which lobbies for legislation recognizing an abortion-breast cancer link.

            Please send a science-based site showing your link. Good luck with that.

        • Ironbob

          Yes because as we all know, we should trust the opinions of those who make thousands of dollars on whatever they are advising us on. Where in the hell did any of you morons think that a medical degree insures morality.

          • ima

            Terrific answer, Ironbob. You, of course, do not carry health insurance for yourself and your family, correct? You never visit the doctor, am I right? You’re much too smart to give your hard earned money to these immoral quacks who lie to you, yes? That would make you an unconscionable hypocrite and you’re definitely not that, right Ironbob?

  • stop.

    Just because they believe there is “no medical reason to have an abortion”. They being the people who obviously have a pro-life bias, you can find as many statistics or reports as you want but they are only ever made to serve ones purpose.
    I mean I could put this right here, an article you know well, the one you shame as being about lies from the pro-choice community, to support my argument that abortions are medically necessary I mean if you would rather wait for your wife to have a miscarriage than have an abortion then be my guest , i mean we all know which one would be more traumatising for her right? a miscarriage sounds safe, clean and over all a very exciting choice compared to an abortion doesn’t it? This article you have presented is from DUBLIN, IRELAND. THE SAME COUNTRY WHERE THIS WOMAN DIED BECAUSE SHE WAS DENIED AN ABORTION. LINKING IT MAYBE? RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE WHERE IT WAS UNNECESSARY. The fact you are using an irish study all together rules everything irrelevant. Nice try though.
    You know what else is medically unnecessary nose jobs, and i don’t see you campaigning to abolish those?
    But while ‘Abortion is never medically necessary why is keeping the baby? If you have no reason for keeping it or no way of supporting it , giving it quality of life and it is going to live a miserable life at the arms of someone who doesn’t want it or doesn’t have the grounds for keeping it then why must you? It is choice to be made by the woman, and how many more lives have to be lost because religious followers believe she has to keep it? Religion killed this woman and eliminated all possibilities of future children, how many lives did that prevent or end? Stop killing women and children, you call yourself pro-life but you are killing women all over the world by calling yourself that.

    • sarah

      Except that the woman didn’t die because she was denied an abortion.
      Even the president-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (a pro-choice country) said that the abotion would not have saved her life, but would have actually made it so that she would die sooner

      Abortion kills women and children. In 2008 (the last year we have records for) 12 women died from abortion right here in the U.S. Where’s your outrage for Tonya Reeves? And abortion practically alway kills a child; that’s the point of the procedure.

    • Thorien

      “If you have no reason for keeping it”

      You need a reason to allow a human being to live?

      Also, the Dublin Declaration says: “We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and
      necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of
      the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her
      unborn child.”

      In other words, if a woman needed a treatment to save her life that could kill her baby, they would support doing it. I think they believe that both the mother and child deserve to live, and that if they can only save the mother, then that’s life and they’ll do their best.

  • Julia

    If you don’t like the site, stop reading it. It is clear the only reason you are on this blog is to post links to your own stuff.

  • Kaitlin

    Where are the medical facts in this article to support this claim?

  • Anne

    Really? You’re still standing by this headline. Awful.