Women killed by legal abortion (in USA) and a tragic case of suicide after abortion (in UK)

Recently, in the Republic of Ireland, a seminar was held, entitled, “Abortion – The Lives and Health of Women.” It was organised by two radical pro-abortion outfits, the National Women’s Council of Ireland and Doctors for Choice.

Here is a quote from one of the doctors who addressed the seminar, Dr. Peadar O’ Grady.

“It has also been observed that suicide in pregnancy (and the year after delivery known as the “puerperium) has become much less common with access to legal abortion services. ………..It is therefore clear from the WHO (World Health Organisation) and peer-reviewed research that restricting access to abortion, that is, denying women “the right to choose” raises the risk of suicide in pregnancy.”  ( end of quote)

In February,2007, a young woman named Emma Beck committed suicide BECAUSE she had an abortion!

Emma was unmarried and she was eight weeks pregnant with twins, and her boyfriend did not want the babies. The Coroner at Emma’s Inquest, Dr.Emma Carlyon, recorded a verdict of suicide.

She said, “It is clear that a termination can have a profound effect on a woman’s life.”

Emma’s GP (family doctor,) Katie Gibbs, said (of Emma,) “She was extremely distressed by the abortion procedure, and I don’t think she ever came to terms with it.”

Now, let Emma speak for herself, through the words written in her suicide note,

“I told everyone I didn’t want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does.” “I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mother.”

This tragic young woman’s story (she was pronounced dead on her 31st birthday,) is profoundly sad and deeply affecting and it clearly shows the devastating effect of abortion, and that there is nothing “safe” about it (despite the oft-repeated mantra “safe,legal abortion is every women’s right.”) In Emma’s case, she killed herself because she had an abortion, she did not commit suicide because she was denied an abortion, yet those medics and feminists at the above-mentioned seminar give the deliberate impression that the risk of suicide is raised if and when access to abortion is restricted. Emma Beck would probably still be alive if abortion had not been presented to her as an “option” for her to make an “informed choice” about.

The abortion procedure itself has also proved fatal for many women. Click on the following link to read the names of women killed by legal abortion (in the USA.)

http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/women-killed-by-legal-abortion/

 

30 thoughts on “Women killed by legal abortion (in USA) and a tragic case of suicide after abortion (in UK)

  1. MrandMrsWhite,

    Yet again you conflate issues to try and create a point (and fail miserably).

    Are you disputing the doctors statement? – in which case you will have to provide evidence that it is incorrect. His assertion, based on evidence, is that access to abortions reduces suicides because people are not forced (as you would have them) to go through pregnancies that they are not capable of coping with.

    It has nothing to do with people having abortions which they did not want and then committing suicide (perhaps if she had gone to Marie Stopes instead of the NHS she would have had counselling and not gone through with it) and it has nothing to do with people whose death is caused by botched abortions many of which are late term and should never have been performed.

    If you want to make a case against abortion you are really going to have to up your game. You need to show that for the vast majority of women who choose to have abortions their outcome is worse than if they had gone through with it. You have not done this and throwing a few cases around which lie at the extremes of the debate does you no credit and does not advance your argument.

    As an aside – if you cannot show that the doctor you quote is incorrect and you are successful in restricting abortion for those who would choose it then the blood of those who commit suicide because they were unable to abort is on your hands. I hope you will shed a tear for them – if you have any emotion left after dealing with the guilt.

    • @ golfieni

      I think that you are correct in saying that Mr or Mrs White has conflated issues to make a point. I also think that you are correct elsewhere in your post. This said, please forgive me if I concentrate for the rest of this comment on saying where I think you are wrong.

      “if you cannot show that the doctor you quote is incorrect and you are successful in restricting abortion for those who would choose it then the blood of those who commit suicide because they were unable to abort is on your hands”

      I do not think that there is any justification for this particular piece of emotional blackmail on your part. I am sure you can do better than this.

      “If you want to make a case against abortion you … need to show that for the vast majority of women who choose to have abortions their outcome is worse than if they had gone through with it.”

      That is definitely wrong. Why? Because you are attempting to perform a Utilitarian ethical calculation without wearing the “veil of ignorance”.

      Properly formulated, your position should be, that Mr and Mrs White need to show that when women choose to have abortions, the *overall* outcome is worse than if they had gone through with the pregnancy. The overall outcome includes the outcome for the deceased zygote, embryo or foetus. Wearing the “veil of ignorance”, in the “original position”, we don’t know how old we are. We would *never* choose abortion as a social policy, in the relevant ethical thought experiment.

      • Mr.Allman,

        We deleted the links you gave because we are unfamiliar with the subject matter therein and we don’t want to provide links on our blog which we cannot vouch for. Please confirm that the last word in your comment is the word “experiment,” as some of the letters disappeared as we deleted the links. Thank you.

      • “We deleted the links you gave because we are unfamiliar with the subject matter therein and we don’t want to provide links on our blog which we cannot vouch for.”

        No problem. However, you could have clicked on the links, and become familiar with the subject matter. I strongly recommend searching the internet for subject matter with which to become familiar, using the following search string:

        “veil of ignorance” abortion

  2. I have had two abortions and they have obviously not killed me nor have they left me mentally deficient or ‘depressed’. Some women benefit by them, hugely. I saw them on the ultrasound scan at 6 and 8 weeks and was d… annoyed those fetuses were occupying my womb, I did not want them there so got rid of them. No fetus has a right to my womb Susan. I say who stays and who goes. Have you met Jude yet?

    • Nicole,

      You do not have the right to “play God.” Who gave YOU the right to decide who lives and who dies? That is God’s prerogative. You do not own your body, God does, because He is the Creator and sustainer of life. You want the “freedom” to engage in sexual relations but you do not want to face the consequences of your behaviour i.e pregnancy, so then, control yourself and refrain from sexual relations, if unmarried, because it appears that you will travel to the nearest abortuary should you become pregnant again. We will leave you with this verse from Job ch.1 v.21, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither; the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”

      • Well guess what, I have the right because it is my body it is in. Yes, I want to have sex but d… if I want a baby to intrude on my life. We are sexual beings, we are not created for procreation solely. Sex is not just for pregnancy. abstain from sex? never!!! My womb my choice. Get used to it Susan.

      • What has your flavour of god got to do with it? Do we all have to consider what all the worlds gods have to say before we make a decision and abide by all the worlds gods dictates or is it only your beliefs we have to follow. Should Nicole follow the Northern Irish Mrs White’s god or the English Mrs Black’s god, or the French Madame Blanc’s god just because they say so?.

        Your ridiculous pronouncements from your perceived on high are irrelevant (and should be) to Nicole who has a perfect right to decide what happens to her own body.

        As I said before – If you want to make a case against abortion you are really going to have to up your game and quoting from ancient sheep herder myths is not really cutting it.

      • @ Golfieni

        “What has your flavour of god got to do with it?” [Golfieni to Susan]

        If he does not exist, nothing. If he does, everything.

        “Nicole … has a perfect right to decide what happens to her own body”

        What, even if her decision what happens to her own body involves killing another? Some explanation of that asserted “right” is needed. On the face of it, the existence of such a right doesn’t sound fair.

      • John,

        What you are really saying we should do everything Mrs White says just in case she is right about her flavour of god. Pascal’s Wager in other words.Not a very evidenced way to make a decision about anything.

      • @ golfieni

        “What you are really saying we should do everything Mrs White says just in case she is right about her flavour of god. Pascal’s Wager in other words.Not a very evidenced way to make a decision about anything.”

        I didn’t “really” say anything of the sort, did I?

  3. John Allman, you should stop promoting yourself. Susan, abortion has served far more women well than the minority cases you present here. Get your mind off other women’s uteruses. What is wrong with you? women will always abort and you will never stop them doing so.

    • I didn’t want to post the words of my song here, Maeve, so I put them on my own blog and posted a link here. It was Susan’s decision to “promote” me, as you put it, by allowing that link to be published. What did you think of the song?

      Susan and I, who do not know one another personally, appear both to be against abortion, but we give different reasons for our opposition to abortion. Rather than serving women well, I expect that Susan thinks that abortion hasn’t served women well at all in the long run, because it has made God angrier with those women. Without contradicting Susan’s theological ideation, my own reason for opposing abortion is completely different from Susan’s.

      My reason for opposing abortion isn’t because I begrudge mothers-to-be the pleasure that you say that killing their unborn children has brought to many of them, but simply because I consider the killing of the children to be wrong in itself.

      I find that some of the arguments used against abortion are easily dismissed, by those who don’t believe in the relevant myths, as superstitious mumbo jumbo. Every single “pro-choice” attempt I have ever come across to refute my *own* argument against abortion, also depends equally upon a belief in myths, and really does amount to nothing more than superstitious mumbo jumbo. You are welcome to be the first person to refute my argument, without resorting to metaphysics.

      • Mr.Allman,

        We don’t fully understand your views on abortion. Perhaps you could clarify. Are you saying that both the pro-life and pro-abortion lobby engage in “mumbo-jumbo?”

        You state that, “Susan and I, who do not know one another personally, appear both to be against abortion…..”

        Speak for yourself, John, there is no “appear to be,” about my position. I am implacably opposed to abortion, and not just because it makes God angry with women who have abortions. I oppose abortion as a Christian and as a woman because it is the killing of unborn children and because it harms women, physically, mentally and spiritually (ignore the blather of the pro-abortion lobby who say otherwise.)

      • “Are you saying that both the pro-life and pro-abortion lobby engage in ‘mumbo-jumbo?'”

        Yes.

        Beyond a doubt, some members of the pro-life lobby *do* engage in what others will inevitably see as quite outrageous mumbo-jumbo, and rightly so. The pro-choice lobby do not recognise their own mumbo-jumbo, which is more carefully concealed, even the fact that it is mumbo-jumbo from those who actively believe in it.

        I have recently watched on video two sets of demonstrator confronting one another. On one side of a barricade guarded by police, there was a howling, jeering, guilty-looking mob, who didn’t seem to show any understanding as to why they were in the wrong. On the other side of the barricade, there was a quiet, seemingly dignified, but ultimately embarrassing, procession of self-righteous-looking zealots, who didn’t seem to understand why they were in the right.

        The processing pro-lifers were slowly advancing in an ultra-slow march, taking baby-sized steps forward every few seconds, fiddling with their worry beads, and muttering mechanically and in unison their apparent attempts to communicate with a dead woman, some of them holding ugly pictures that, they imagined, looked like this biblical heroine, who, they also apparently imagined, could hear them all speaking to her, in her grave somewhere in Turkey, by all accounts. (Her name begins with M, and she did die, but she didn’t die a virgin, as far as I’m concerned.)

        I felt alienated from both of the two groups of crazies, and pity for both.

        The “pro-life” were wearing their mumbo-jumbo, like a uniform of which they were proud. The other group seemed diverse. But all of them had, so-to-speak, mumbo-jumbo underwear on, under their diverse outer clothing. How do I know this? Because I have debated before with pro-choice people, and I know where the argument always comes to a grinding halt – when one confronts their subtly hidden religiosity with science. Every single one of them relies upon a deceptive, dualistic doctrine, in order to “refute” (in their dreams!) the rational, scientific, legal, secular and indefeasible argument against allowing elective abortion other than in extremis, the Article 2 right to life of the human victim of every abortion.

        In every single case, the pro-choice lobby members deny the unborn, or some of the unborn, the right to life, because of a superstitious belief that every one of them has, in one form or another, in a wholly unscientific piece of mumbo-jumbo that, fifty years ago, one might have imagined had died out in the middle ages. That is the biological fiction of man being a ghost who lives inside a machine, who begins life as a machine without a ghost, and, at some subsequent point in time, acquires a ghost. This fiction is called “ensoulment”, the process or event by which the “soul” enters the “body”. There isn’t a shred of scientific evidence to support this myth. And yet, it is upon this myth, that the entire abortion industry depends, for our continued toleration of the slaughter the industry perpetrates, killing countless millions of humans every year, who are (for example) Nicole’s equals and Golfieni’s, as well your equals and mine, though less deserving of a death sentence than any of us.

        The deception that blinds many to the reality, lies in the modernisation of the original mediaeval language of this ancient mumbo-jumbo. For example, the word “soul” is replaced by the word “personhood”, so that ensoulment becomes “enpersonment”, I suppose. But it remains the same antiquated, anachronistic mumbo-jumbo for all this disguising. Any biologist will laugh the entire concept out of court, as being as unreal as the Philosopher’s Stone, or the Luminiferous Aether. Or you may come across a linguistic sophistry worthy of the General of the SJ, that a being who is human might nevertheless not be held to be a “human being”. It all boils down to the same thing, and it is just as much mumbo-jumbo as prayer beads or talking to the dead.

    • Then so be it murder Glenn if thats what you want to call it. It has no right being in my body – tell your ‘god’ that for me please. Not my fault he decided only one gender would carry the product of sex – tell him to make some design changes and create men with wombs and lets see how the abortion debate goes then….

      • Nicole,
        You invited the child into your body when you participated in an action which produced it. If you don’t want the child, then either do not have sex or use contraception. Murdering the child because you want irresponsible sex is a heinous act.

        Men as a whole are just as happy with abortion as women are, because it also frees them of the responsibility for taking care of a child they are responsible for.

        My God is also your God whether or not you want to acknowledge Him.

        • Glenn,

          We do not believe that contraception is the answer to Nicole’s sexual activity. We believe she should not be sexually active if unmarried and faithful to her husband, if married. Some years ago, a Christian doctor wrote a book entitled, “Lessons in Depravity,” which clearly documented the corrupting effect sex education has had on society. He showed that the more a society adopts and embraces amoral sex education in schools, and pushes a contraceptive culture on us all, sexual activity increases (especially among the young,)and pregnancy rates rise which then leads to an increase in the number of abortions.

          • Susan-Anne,
            My belief is that sexual relations outside of the marital union are wrong. However, I have to be realistic and recognize that society doesn’t agree with me, let alone do they agree with God.

            My point is that in Nicole’s sexual worldview, which is sexual immorality, there is a simple and perfect fix to the problem of unwanted pregnancy and that is to remain celibate (which she implies she is unable to do) or use contraceptive methods. To continue having sex without contraception is giving approval for a child to be conceived.

      • “tell [God] to make some design changes and create men with wombs and lets see how the abortion debate goes then”

        I do not see how this proposed thought experiment is going to change the “abortion debate” at all. In fact, a considerable number of those who are regarded in law as men rather than women have already been pregnant, and even given birth.

        How would you foresee that this change, if God were to make it, would change the abortion debate?

  4. A woman ‘invites’ an unwanted fetus into her body as much as she ‘invites’ a brain tumour…an unwanted fetus is akin to a tumour – unless wanted it is invading someone’s body and that someone has the right to have it removed. Whichever way you interpret a womans role or culpability in a conception is neither here nor there Glenn, the simple thing is it has no right to be there unless I say. I trust you would view cancerous cells in your prostate gland as being ‘sent from god’ because you had somehow played a role in ‘inviting them to be there’ and as such would not wish to harm them – or would you be a hypocrite and opt for chemo?

    • Nicole,
      To compare a baby to a disease demonstrates rank ignorance of the human body and of biology. You do indeed invite a baby by having sexual relations. That is the only way for that baby to get there.

    • Nicole,
      So this is how you respond – with an ad hominem attack? You are wrong in your assumption. And I do not have to defend my manhood – my wife is quite satisfied having me as her husband for almost 37 years.

  5. I note that Susan and Francis are concentrating on abortion based topics of late because people generally do not bother with the other articles they publish here. They have published yet another abortion linked topic and they do this to attract comments. The articles in between have been ignored. Don’t like being ignored then Susan…?

    Of course you will ‘moderate the last line because ‘you have the right’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s