Tag Archives: induced labor abortion

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?

Click to enlarge…


While arguing in defense of abortion immediatism during his debate against Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham, Abolish Human Abortion’s T. Russell Hunter used a tree analogy.

Hunter claimed cutting off “branches” of abortion through incremental laws is more than a waste of time, it’s counterproductive, because new branches take their place. The only way to end abortion, said Hunter, is to ignore the branches and focus on chopping down the tree.

Hunter’s tree-cutting analogy is erroneous for several reasons, foremost because removing branches first is exactly how it’s done. I happen to know this because we had to have three big trees cut down in our yard last year (thanks, ash borers), and I happened to take video. Little did I know how handy it would come in…

YouTube Preview Image

At risk of taking Hunter’s tree analogy too far, I daresay all trees in populated areas, such as where abortion exists, are cut down branches first.

In fact, as Cunningham pointed out, “In the entire history of social reform, no activists have ever outlawed a major injustice ‘immediately.'” It has always been branches first.

suckerWell, now that I’ve started down this path, I’ll add it seems indicative to me of Hunter’s antiquated, undeveloped logic that he would use shears and an ax in his illustration to cut off branches and take down a tree. In both cases only a saw will do, unless one wants to take forever, or one is too small to handle a saw, or one hasn’t properly assessed the tree.

Ok, one other point, Hunter is apparently unaware that suckers can grow from trunks (see photo right), so it’s not as if cutting a tree down is necessarily the end of things.

That’s the last of my immediatism tree analogies. On with Hunter’s.

Video of Hunter’s argument is below. In it he makes several gaffes in relation to incrementalism.

2015-05-01_1048One is that he shows a new branch of late-term abortion growing from the cut-off branch of partial-birth abortion.

That’s not accurate. No new branches have grown. There are only so many ways to commit late-term abortions. So the other methods are separate branches we are also working to lop off, such as 12+ week dismemberment abortions, a new target.

About dismemberment bans Hunter misquoted me (at 5:05 in video below) as stating, “Of course, there are other methods that might grow up in its place.” Not true. I wrote:

The fact that abortionists might simply switch procedures disturbs me, of course, although I know the mere title, “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act,” is incredibly educational.

But Balch reminded me the induced labor abortion method requires a higher level of expertise, as abortionists testified during the Partial Birth Abortion Ban hearings….

So, yes, a Dismemberment Ban would stop many babies from being aborted.

At any rate, don’t bans against 20-week abortions, or 13-week abortions, or 6-week abortions address Hunter’s concern about banning methods? Those are branches we are certain can never grow back.

It is true the Culture of Death, i.e., Satan, is constantly devising new ways (“branches”) to kill innocent children. It is naive to think otherwise.

Such as the emerging worldwide black market for abortion pills. This phenomenon has nothing to do with whether abortion is legal in the U.S. It’s simply another new abortion branch that will need chopping off.

So here’s Hunter’s tree analogy…

YouTube Preview Image

I know Hunter is a smart guy. I know he knows he grossly misrepresents the pro-life movement, such as at 7:47 in the video:

And you say [to pro-life leaders], “Well, why don’t you say abortion is murder and sin and seek its abolition?” Well, because they can’t. Because it’s legal. And the courts have said. So now instead of that wily snake saying that we gotta keep legal abortion safe, legal, and rare, we’ve got pro-lifers saying, “As long as abortion is legal, it should be safe, early, and painless.”

2015-05-01_1233Hunter knows it is ludicrous to claim pro-lifers keep secret the fact that “abortion is murder and sin” and don’t “seek its abolition.” He knows perfectly well we do both. It is slander of the worst kind for Hunter to claim the end game for pro-lifers is that abortion be “safe, early, and painless.” He knows perfectly well why we pursue incremental efforts.

(All this while Hunter pursues his own self-approved brand of incrementalism – geographical incrementalism.)

So why does Hunter persist? Stay tuned for Part III: “Immediatist underpinnings collapse.”

Also read:
Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later.

Stanek weekend question: What to say to mother who photographed her abortion?

Son-in-law Andy Moore forwarded me a link to thisismyabortion.com.

A mother using the pseudonym “Jane” took secret photos with her cell phone of her aborted baby and posted them online.

Jane’s rationale:

My intention in documenting and sharing my abortion is to demystify the sensationalist images propagated by the religious and political right on this matter. The perverse use of lifeless fetus photographs are a propaganda tool in the prolife/prochoice debate in which women and their bodies are used as pawns to push a cultural, political, and religious agenda in the United States.

At 6 weeks of pregnancy, my abortion looked very different than the images I saw when I entered the clinic that day.

Yes, a young baby murdered by suction abortion will look very different than an older baby murdered by a D&C, RU-486, D&E, or induced labor abortion.

So what? I am still overwhelmed with sadness looking at that jar of bloody pulp. Jane’s dead baby is in there, even if unrecognizable, and Jane had the great idea to “document” the murder. Both the visual and the thought are hard to bear.

The comments are hard to bear, too. Jane is being called “brave… incredible… thoughtful… helpful… an amazing chica… incredibly courageous,” etc., all for posting photographs of the baby she just murdered.

When asked in an interview whether she thought she would ever regret either her abortion or her decision to photograph the remains of her baby, Jane responded, “So far, I have not regretted having my abortion or sharing these photographs. I don’t think that I will.”

I’m not sure anything a pro-lifer has to say will get through to Jane at this point, but we can try. What would you like to say to her? What would you like to say to all those giving her kudos?

Christ Hospital obstetrician (and abortionist) shares birthday with mom and triplets

From the Associated Press, April 18:

Talk about a birthday party.

steven ambrose 2.png

Evelia Rivera spent her 25th birthday at a suburban Chicago hospital delivering her triplet sons: Jayden Edwin, Jordan Michael and Julian Kobe.
But turns out that wasn’t enough of a celebration.
Dr. Steven Ambrose [pictured right] who helped perform the Cesarean section on Wednesday at Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn was celebrating his birthday too….

Continue reading

“Fact” checker Media Matters doesn’t even know what a Partial Birth Abortion is

The ironies are layered and rich. Here was the “Quick Fact” headline in the “Research” section of supposed media watchdog, the liberal Media Matters:
media matters headline, obama, born alive, partial birth abortion.png
And the equally fact-challenged article…

Continue reading

Bishop investigates Catholic hospital for induced labor abortions

About St. Joseph’s Health Centre in London, Ontario, LifeSiteNews.com reported March 5:

A LifeSiteNews.com exposé on the practice of “early inductions” on babies with lethal fetal anomaly at a Catholic hospital has resulted in the matter being reviewed by the Vatican….


London Bishop Ronald Fabbro… informed LSN that he has launched an investigation…. The matter has also been referred to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
The procedure – “early induction” of unborn babies with “lethal fetal anomalies” – refers to artificially causing the child to be born prematurely at 21-24 weeks – earlier than any child could survive without extreme medical intervention….

In 2004 I began reporting (read here and here) on 2 US Catholic hospital systems committing induced labor abortion: Providence on the west coast and Loyola in Chicago.
Loyola sent me its policy, which stated…

Continue reading

Hunter Michael

I’ve met mothers who didn’t understand they were aborting their late-term sick babies. Medical staff coded language by calling it “early induction of labor,” etc.
Here’s a tragic story of a mother who went through the induced labor abortion procedure, and her baby survived for a time. This dear mother didn’t understand what had happened until years later, when reading my testimony. She has given me permission to share her story…

In 1995 I was told just before my 6-month mark that my son had multi-cystic dysplastic kidneys. They said it was a terminal disease and that I needed to abort. I refused, and they said I could die if I didn’t abort. I still refused, and I finally agreed to give birth normally if they promised to try and save him. They said I had to hurry because it would be illegal in 5 more days because I’d be over the term limit.
They said they would, and I gave birth…but it was horrible. I was 20, didn’t know much…they didn’t tell me what to expect. I was alone in the room, and felt like I needed to use the bathroom. While I was in there, my water finally broke. They had drugged me up pretty well and dismissed my concerns about what it would do to the baby….

Continue reading

Breaking news: Drudge picks up AP story on Hialeah aborted alive baby

UPDATE, 2/6, 8:30a: Ed Morrisey at Hot Air has a post up on this story, linking it to Obama.
UPDATE, 2/5 4:15p: Fox News’ Dr. Manny Alvarez has weighed in on this case: “Burn his license and shut down that clinic!”
drudge miami.jpg
Up on Drudge’s front page now is a link to the following EXCELLENT AP story (as well as a link to a LifeSiteNews.com story on the civil lawsuit)…

Continue reading

CNN: “Obama leads in baby smooches”

Every morning I read my Bible and pray. Otherwise I know I’d not fare well mentally through the day trying to promote the sanctity of life against anti-life liberals and media. Today though, despite the great start, I’m really close to losing it.
This just blows my mind. Click to link to video:
obama smooches babies.jpg
I almost can’t get my arms around this one. The audacity of Obama to push abortion to its most radical ends – pba, live birth abortion, and FOCA – and then relish kissing babies? He really is maniacal….

Continue reading