10 Surprising Quotes From Abortion "Doctors"

[Kurieuo]

Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I was trained to conserve life, and here I am destroying it.

We know that it’s killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances.

You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular… she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby… All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s to all intents and purposes, the death trauma… somebody has to do it, and unfortunately we are the executioners in this instance[.]

If I see a case…after twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there…On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is “who owns this child?” It’s got to be the mother.

I got to where I couldn’t stand to look at the little bodies anymore.

The others can be read here: 10 Very Surprising Quotes From Abortion Doctors

[1over137]

Please Lord, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.

Or wait, they know. They know, yet they do not know.

[Kurieuo]

One day, when all is said and done, the cries of the unborn and even those born and killed will be heard.

In that moment, those responsible will certainly need the mercy that only comes through accepting God's forgiveness.

[neo-x]

Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I was trained to conserve life, and here I am destroying it.

We know that it’s killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances.

You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular… she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby… All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s to all intents and purposes, the death trauma… somebody has to do it, and unfortunately we are the executioners in this instance[.]

If I see a case…after twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there…On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is “who owns this child?” It’s got to be the mother.

I got to where I couldn’t stand to look at the little bodies anymore.

The others can be read here: 10 Very Surprising Quotes From Abortion Doctors

Its so sad.

[neo-x]

K, do you think that a country like china or India should adopt a no abortion policy? I ask because they are so overpopulated that birth control is must...your thoughts?

[Kurieuo]

K, do you think that a country like china or India should adopt a no abortion policy? I ask because they are so overpopulated that birth control is must...your thoughts?

Yes, most definitely they should.

Killing human life isn't the answer the over-population and as such poverty. If we allow it, then how far should we go? Who decides who lives and who dies? Peter Singer says society at large should... but then look where that took Nazi Germany. Do we want a world like that?

Valuing all human life provides a foundation to build upon for societies to start caring about the poor rather than exploiting them.

Over population is an issue, because societies segment off and disregard the poor for some reason or another to justify the lifestyles of others. Those who have even exploit the poor and kick them further to the ground. The world at large does not really care about the poor. Wealth, comfort, greed and power motivate us. Complacency is also a big issue. Even myself, living in Australian society while I acknowledge, I do not really see or experience the scale of poverty in the world. It's easy to hide in the comfort of Australian society. Behind making my own in life. Behind my family life.

If everyone really cared, then there wouldn't be any issue.

Killing human life in the womb or even infants isn't going to cure anything except to de-value human life in one society or another. Taking human life will only reduce us, and is not a solution to dealing with the immense poverty that exists throughout the world due to over-population greed -- because humanity will still crave power, wealth and comfort.

Even if it were a cure, you don't fix something wrong through a wrong. It'll bite you on the butt big time in the end. Who knows, maybe it'll be your own execution next, or the children that you wish you could have, or children's children.

As Martin Luther King said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!"

China is certainly no model to follow:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_dGjB4suxY[/youtube]

[neo-x]

K, do you think that a country like china or India should adopt a no abortion policy? I ask because they are so overpopulated that birth control is must...your thoughts?

Yes, most definitely they should.

Killing human life isn't the answer the over-population and as such poverty. If we allow it, then how far should we go? Who decides who lives and who dies? Peter Singer says society at large should... but then look where that took Nazi Germany. Do we want a world like that?

Valuing all human life provides a foundation to build upon for societies to start caring about the poor rather than exploiting them.

Over population is an issue, because societies segment off and disregard the poor for some reason or another to justify the lifestyles of others. Those who have even exploit the poor and kick them further to the ground. The world at large does not really care about the poor. Wealth, comfort, greed and power motivate us. Complacency is also a big issue. Even myself, living in Australian society while I acknowledge, I do not really see or experience the scale of poverty in the world. It's easy to hide in the comfort of Australian society. Behind making my own in life. Behind my family life.

If everyone really cared, then there wouldn't be any issue.

Killing human life in the womb or even infants isn't going to cure anything except to de-value human life in one society or another. Taking human life will only reduce us, and is not a solution to dealing with the immense poverty that exists throughout the world due to over-population -- because humanity will still be greedy, crave power, wealth and comfort.

Even if it were a cure, you don't fix something wrong through a wrong. It'll bite you on the butt big time in the end. Who knows, maybe it'll be your own execution next, or the children that you wish you could have, or children's children.

As Martin Luther King said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!"

China is certainly no model to follow:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_dGjB4suxY[/youtube]

I am not saying China is model to follow but they do have a problem. I am not sure what they should do, even if let's say all of them are rich, then how does it affect upon the growing numbers problem? The thing is there is less and less space, less food, less jobs.

I agree that one wrong is no solution to another wrong but what other viable option, in a system do you think they have?

Killing human life in the womb or even infants isn't going to cure anything except to de-value human life in one society or another.

I understand but as I said what else is a viable option in your opinion? Not everyone can go all moral and generous and even if they did, that just solves poverty, not overpopulation.

[Kurieuo]

I understand but as I said what else is a viable option in your opinion? Not everyone can go all moral and generous and even if they did, that just solves poverty, not overpopulation.

There is still lots of space on Earth.

So what does "overpopulation" mean to you?

What is it that makes the population "overpopulated" and what issues are tied to that?

[Kurieuo]

I agree that one wrong is no solution to another wrong but what other viable option, in a system do you think they have?

Well, the way I see it "the solution" isn't working. Is it?

I suppose if one really wants to bring down the numbers of humanity, then we could choose to kill off all those living in slums or who don't add much to society. Seriously.

Thoughts?

[neo-x]

I understand but as I said what else is a viable option in your opinion? Not everyone can go all moral and generous and even if they did, that just solves poverty, not overpopulation.

There is still lots of space on Earth.

So what does "overpopulation" mean to you?

What is it that makes the population "overpopulated" and what issues are tied to that?

But can we use that space, all of it? may be some, but certainly not all.

I understand that poverty is affected by population size, but its also true that elminating poverty does not automatically reduces population.

[Kurieuo]

You avoided my question and keep repeating over population... but what is it that makes population "overpopulation" with the immediate implications that such is "bad"?

Furthermore, can the issues of "overpopulation" be resolved without resorting to enforced abortions or killing a subset of humans?

What are these issues that you see inherent in overpopulation? (helps to first know them)

[neo-x]

I agree that one wrong is no solution to another wrong but what other viable option, in a system do you think they have?

Well, the way I see it "the solution" isn't working. Is it?

I suppose if one really wants to bring down the numbers of humanity, then we could choose to kill off all those living in slums or who don't add much to society. Seriously.

Thoughts?

Lets say this solution is not employed all, the increase in population would be very high indeed, WHO estimates 40-50 million abortions a year in the world. This does not still account for lots of street abortions, so give n take 5 million. In twenty years, that is a staggering 1 billion addition to the world's population, in forty years it would be 2 billion+ may be more. Add to that the growing number of population already very high by some standards by 2050, our population would be around 10.9 billion (and add that 2 billion in it) How do you think it would affect us? Are we prepared for an over populated planet? Do we have the resources for it? Would it not produce more poverty, more crime?

Just to be clear, I am not an abortion fan, nor do I think killing babies is fine, what I am doing here is to ask you, what better solution do you propose. Your solution is a moral decision, some will follow others won't but ultimately it does not solve the population problem. In Fact it increases it. The problem is there. Not killing babies, only solves a moral problem.

Thoughts?

[neo-x]

You avoided my question and keep repeating over population... but what is it that makes population "overpopulation" with the immediate implications that such is "bad"?

Furthermore, can the issues of "overpopulation" be resolved without resorting to enforced abortions or killing a subset of humans?

That is what I am trying to get an answer of.

What are these issues that you see inherent in overpopulation? (helps to first know them)

Faster depletion of the planet's resources and its direct effect on humanity.

Most wars are fought for land and resources.

Every day, at least one billion people sleep hungry. That is one in every 7 people. 25000 people die every day of starvation and at least 18000 thousand are children below the age of 5.

One billion of humans, don't have access to water to drink or for sanitation. Aquifers are being depleted faster than they can be replenished.

I am sure you won't like your child sitting in a classroom with 200 other children instead of 30, with one teacher at hand? Overpopulation directly affects this. Infact here, in pakistan, my classroom size was about 110-120 students, in short it helped no one.

Would you think that an overcrowded hospital is good for you? No you won't. No one does.

I don't need to write about fuel and its impacts. You are very well aware of that.

Not to mention, that the irrigation soil, is getting used up too quickly.

Pandemics always grow faster in dense populations, you know that very well.

More poverty and crime follows.

I am not sure why you wanted me to write this, since this is pretty much common knowledge.

[Kurieuo]

I'm really surprise you've swung this way in such a strong manner. To be honest John, I'm quite taken back as was not expecting it.

You asked a question, and then got defensive when I expected to hear about your own solution. But none seems forthcoming, other than to continue the injustice of killing unborn human lives, perhaps even infanticide, maybe even those disabled or unable to take care of themselves? (I don't know how far you'd like to take it)

I still do not see the logic behind killing humans = fixing human's ills.

North Korea has starvation issues. Many are suffering. Why? Over population? I don't think so.

Mandela legalised abortion in South Africa right up to conception. The logic you are proposing would dictate that crimes should be reduced. Has crime and the situation there improved or worsened?

So my question is how does killing humans fix the situation? It just worsens the situation since while you may not see it, injustice breeds injustice. It's not just a moral issue, it is moral decay. The natural pandemics are just replaced by human created pandemics.

Furthermore, I did propose an earlier solution. Kill those who are poor and cannot effectively contribute to society at large. Effectively eradicating such means you're dealing with the issue directly and eliminating "those issues". You will have less drug addicts, you will have less drunks, you will have less crime and social disorder. What are your thoughts?

Finally, speaking as one Christian to another, sin never breeds life but breeds death -- an underlining message in Christianity itself but which we see over and over again throughout history and in life.

[neo-x]

I'm really surprise you've swung this way in such a strong manner. To be honest John, I'm quite taken back as was not expecting it.

You asked a question, and then got defensive when I expected to hear about your own solution. But none seems forthcoming, other than to continue the injustice of killing unborn human lives, perhaps even infanticide, maybe even those disabled or unable to take care of themselves? (I don't know how far you'd like to take it)

I still do not see the logic behind killing humans = fixing human's ills.

North Korea has starvation issues. Many are suffering. Why? Over population? I don't think so.

Mandela legalised abortion in South Africa right up to conception. The logic you are proposing would dictate that crimes should be reduced. Has crime and the situation there improved or worsened?

So my question is how does killing humans fix the situation? It just worsens the situation since while you may not see it, injustice breeds injustice. It's not just a moral issue, it is moral decay. The natural pandemics are just replaced by human created pandemics.

I am not swinging anyway K, don't read too much in my words. I have no stance here, so I am not being defensive at all. You are a strong supporter of pro-life. All I am asking is how do you see this problem solved? Population increase leads to the above mentioned problems. Consider me a devil's advocate if nothing else. Though I am asking this out of intrest and not to pick sides, if that is what you have had the impression of.

So my question is how does killing humans fix the situation? It just worsens the situation since while you may not see it, injustice breeds injustice. It's not just a moral issue, it is moral decay. The natural pandemics are just replaced by human created pandemics.

It doesn't, but it keeps it from accelerating faster. In the end, birth control seems inevitable, whether it is exercised as a choice or a policy, given our current circumstances.

Furthermore, I did propose an earlier solution. Kill those who are poor and cannot effectively contribute to society at large. Effectively eradicating such means you're dealing with the issue directly and eliminating "those issues". You will have less drug addicts, you will have less drunks, you will have less crime and social disorder. What are your thoughts?

Poor do contribute to the society, they just don't get rich from it, they are the labor force for the rich guy, without the poor there is no one rich. Drug addiction is rampant in elites, so is drinking. Crime and social disorder is everywhere, somewhere its more, at others less.

Mandela legalised abortion in South Africa right up to conception. The logic you are proposing would dictate that crimes should be reduced. Has crime and the situation there improved or worsened?

And no, it doesn't necessarily dictate that, though it must have a factor. There are other factors, the point to note is not whether crime is less or more, but rather did any of the crime got less because of the less population factor. There may be other numerous factors directly affecting crime.