Although I do not agree with the idea of abortion, I am content to expose some interesting facts about abortion without judgment.
Before continuing, let me assure you that the purpose of this article is to educate and help. As we will see, abortion has not only caused many regrets to the women who have suffered it, but also to those who have encouraged and practiced it.
And if the abortion was seen differently…! And if we were better informed about abortion…! This is the purpose of this article.
Accepting or preventing the birth of a man has always been a matter of choice. That’s why abortion is one of the most controversial topics of our generation, but amidst resentment and debate, some interesting facts about abortion cannot be denied.
Children and grandchildren are divine blessings. If you doubt it, ask a person who has never had the opportunity to count the fingers and toes of his newborn baby. For others, children are seen as a burden that must be avoided at all costs – even to provoke an abortion.
If there is one subject that politicians wish to avoid, this is it. Whether they are for or against, they are always losers because a large number of voters will oppose their opinion. This is a controversial topic in all parties, but abortion should not be a way to recover votes. It is about life or death. This is a painful subject for many women who regret a decision made in their youth, usually under stress: stress from external pressures, fear of the future, and having to deal with a problem that did not seem to have easy solutions. What seems to be a good decision at the age of 17 is no longer necessarily at 37. At this age, feelings of regret begin to surface for many women.
*** Interesting Facts About Abortion in State Constitutions
This subject is still as sensitive today as 40 years ago and affects many women (as well as men) around the world.
Since 1967, the United Kingdom has allowed abortion for up to 24 weeks. The United States has legalized it with Roe v. Wade in 1973. It became legal in Canada in 1988 when a century-old law prohibiting abortion was abolished by the Supreme Court. In France, abortion was allowed from 1975 with the Veil Act. Belgium and Switzerland legalized it respectively in 1990 and 2002. Similar decisions have been made in many countries around the world. Sometimes boys are wanted, while girls are aborted. Does this support the right of women to have the freedom to choose? Despite laws that legalize ending a child’s life in his mother’s womb, abortion remains a controversial subject in many countries.
*** Interesting Facts About Abortions in the Numbers
Western media often portray abortion opponents as religious fanatics or protesters spewing their hate in the face of people. This only applies to a minority. Based on media reports, we might think that the overwhelming majority of people think that it is morally acceptable to end the life of a child not yet born. Is this true? The answer is no! The following quote will undoubtedly surprise many. The identity of the person making this statement is even more surprising.
Kirsten Powers is a journalist and TV columnist who openly embraces the most liberal causes. However, here is what she writes in her book In silence: How the left kills freedom of speech (1): “While university officials and student associations seem to be part of the pro-abortion rights movement, it is interesting to note that the reciprocal does not apply to college students. A 2011 Thomson Reuters survey for NPR [US National Public Radio] found that among Americans under 35, 65.5% think “that is bad”, the highest percentage of all groups (It is 57% for those aged 35 to 64, and 60.9% for those over 64) “(page 170).
According to a survey conducted by a well-respected polling Institute, and commissioned by the US National Public Radio, nearly two-thirds of Generation Y thinks that favor is bad. Kirsten Powers then gives the results of another institute that, by its own admission, is politically left-wing and whose results can thus lean a little further to the left. Although the figures are different, they are surprised about the opposition to abortion: “The Public Institute for Research on Religion (PRRI), left-oriented, reported in 2011 that” the morality of abortion was a dilemma for Generation Y “, with 50% saying they did not think that favoring is morally acceptable” (ibid.).
Gerald Weston personally conducted a data search, or lack of data, on this topic. The results vary from country to country, from month to month, from year to year, and most importantly, depending on how the questions are formulated. I fully agree with Kirsten Powers’ conclusion about these polls: “At a minimum, it shows that groups like Voice for Life [an anti-abortion association] are not a minority fringe, except for the intolerant left. (Ibid).
If the numbers are correct, 60% of Canadians supported unrestricted abortion in 2012, but what does “unrestricted” mean? Did the respondents really understand what they were supporting? Without restriction, it means to be able to abort at eight months of pregnancy! Did they really think? According to a National Post article, this could be related to the fact that Canadians want to show their independence by taking the opposite of the trend in the United States. Of course, it also depends on how the question was asked. In any case, it is hard to believe that 60% of Canadians support unrestricted abortion in any circumstance and at any stage of pregnancy, particularly during the last trimester. If they were, then they would not be representative of the rest of the world.
In Great Britain
In Britain and the United States, many people are in favor of abortion during the first trimester (the first 12 weeks). This support declines sharply for the second trimester and becomes almost non-existent during the last three months of pregnancy. Although the UK allows abortion for up to 24 weeks, a majority of Britons believe the limit should be lowered to 12 weeks.
Baby or Fetus at 12 Weeks of Pregnancy?
According to this issue, we can get some quite interesting facts about abortions. Generation Y perhaps understands what is happening inside the uterus, and this explains why, according to several polls, a majority of them are against abortion. Web sites allow you to see, week by week, every stage of your baby’s development. Here’s what you read in just ten weeks: “Your baby has officially become a fetus! He is ready to grow and will more than double in the next three weeks. Your baby can swallow and kick; all his main organs are developed. More precise details also appear, like the nails of the hands and the first hair on the head. Your baby’s sex organs start to appear. During your upcoming ultrasound, you will finally know if you will have a boy or a girl “(BabyCentre.co.uk, November 2016).
Is not it interesting that when you want the child, he is called a baby; but if the parents do not want it, is it described as an unimportant heap of cells, the product of conception, or even a clot of blood?
Jessica Baldwin, a journalist on Al Jazeera, described a study by University College London.
These researchers worked with a prototype ultrasound device of very high resolution, small flexible tubes, and robotic hands, to perform very delicate procedures inside the uterus. Doctors can detect congenital anomalies as early as 12 weeks of age. Until now, they could rarely intervene, but things are changing. Dr. Anna David describes the goal they want to achieve: “If we had an extremely fine needle, we could manage to heal the baby, the mother would not risk giving birth prematurely and the outcome would be much better” (AlJazeera.com, December 27, 2015).
Again, although technically a fetus, note that doctors already call him a baby at 12 weeks of age – that’s what he is! In his book The Evil Market, David Kupelian has written a particularly successful chapter on this subject, with testimonials from people who were once involved in the abortion industry. He quotes women and men, some of whom openly admit that it was just a money story and how they were trained to “sell” an abortion to all the women who came to see them. Carol Everett, who managed up to five abortion clinics, tells us a little behind the scenes of this trade. When patients came for information, she reported that “nothing was said to them about the baby’s development, or about the pain the baby would experience, or about the emotional and physical effects that abortion would have on them” (page 196).
Everett explains that girls are always asked two recurring questions:
“Does it hurt? And “Is it a baby? The explanations provided are revealing: “The answer was” No “. ” It’s the product of design,” or “it’s a blood clot,” or “it’s a clump of cells.” They did not even use the word fetus, because that term was almost too humanizing, but it was never a baby “(ibid.). In the same way, in France, the medical staff avoids using the word abortion, preferring the administrative term abortion (abortion).
She then describes what she calls the “two typical reactions in the resuscitation room” after an abortion: “The first one is,” I killed my baby. “It surprised me that the patients called her for the first time a baby […]. But the second reaction is: “I’m hungry. It’s been four hours since I was here and you told me it would only take two hours. Let me out. “These women were doing the same thing as me when I aborted. They were fleeing their abortions, they did not want to face them “(ibid., Pages 196-197).
To say that every doctor, every secretary, and every advisor of an abortion clinic is there for the money would be too reductive. While many do it for the money, but some, like Mrs. Everett, realize their mistake and start living with regret. Many people mistakenly think that they are doing this for the sake of women. This is completely wrong, but in today’s world, with the influence of the media and scientists, they believe it is! For them, all those who are against abortion are simple-minded, out of touch with reality. Former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino explains it this way: “Every person working in the abortion industry knows that all those involved in anti-abortion movements are weird people. I know it because CNN told me so and they would never lie to me”(ProLifeAction.org, June 10, 2014). The statement about CNN is ironic, but Dr. Levatino discovered that what he had always believed about anti-abortion was wrong. […]
Interesting Facts About Abortions from the Heart of the Abortion Industry
How did the current abortion industry get started? The answers might surprise you! Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Lawrence Lader (both dead) were the co-founders of NARAL, one of the first pro-abortion groups that encouraged the liberalization of this practice among the American public.
*** The Tactics Used to Promote Abortion
It is interesting to note that the two founders of NARAL were not women, but men. They had created slogans like “Freedom to choose” or “Women must be able to control their own bodies”. With the help of feminist Betty Friedan, they had been working on a strategy to get their cause accepted in the media, which would then broadcast it to the American people. In an article containing his “confessions”, published by the Catholic Educational Resource Center, Dr. Nathanson explains the three tactics used.
The first was “capturing the media” (CatholicEducation.org, 2013).
David Kupelian quotes Nathanson’s confessions to explain what he meant by “capturing the media”:
– “Knowing that if a real survey took place, we would record a defeat, we simply made the results of fictitious surveys. We announced to the media that we had conducted surveys and that 60% of Americans were in favor of the liberalization of abortion. These are the tactics of self-fulfilling lies. Few people like to be in the minority. We have generated enough compassion to sell our abortion liberalization program by inventing the number of illegal abortions each year in the United States. The actual figure was close to 100,000, but the figure we regularly gave to the media was one million.
– “Repeating enough this big lie finally convinced the audience. The number of women dying from illegal abortions ranged from 200 to 250 per year. The figure we constantly provided to the media was 10,000 “(Kupelian, page 191).
Nathanson’s second tactic was to play the “Catholic card”.
In short, it was to train Catholics against the hierarchy of their Church, portrayed as disconnected from the real world. In a subtle way, it also isolated them in people’s minds as part of the only opposition force.
The third tactic was “the denial and suppression of all scientific evidence showing that life begins at conception”.
Nathanson wrote in his confessions: “A favorite tactic of pro-abortion is to insist that defining the moment of the beginning of life is impossible; that it is a theological, moral or philosophical question, but in no way scientific. Fetology [the study of the fetus in the womb] undeniably shows that life begins at conception and that it requires all the protection and precautions that each of us enjoys. He adds, “As a scientist, I do not presume, but I know that human life begins at conception” (CatholicEducation.org).
*** Dr. Nathanson’s Testimony About Abortion
It makes sense to ask why Nathanson made such a confession. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Dr. Nathanson, nicknamed by Kupelian “of man who put the abortion movement on track” changed sides, but only after there were about 75,000 abortions in his clinic, including 5,000 of his own hands and 10,000 others under his supervision. As he states, “This experience allows me to talk about these interesting facts about abortions knowingly” (Kupelian, page 192).
Nathanson’s awareness came after he resigned from his clinic to become head of the obstetrics department at St. Luke’s Hospital in New York, a training center at Columbia University. It was there that he discovered a host of new technologies that allowed him to see with great precision what he had never seen before. In his own words, this is what came out of this experience at the hospital: “… with all this technology – by observing this baby, examining him, inspecting him, watching his metabolic functions, seeing him urinate, to swallow, to move and to sleep, seeing his dream, it could be detected by the quick movements of his ultrasound visible eyes, by treating him, by operating him – I ended up being convinced that he was my patient. It was a person! (Kupelian, pages 192-193).
As he mentions, it had absolutely nothing to do with religion.
It was a reality. He made a film that became a big problem for the pro-abortion movement. “Silent Scream” is filmed in the womb and shows how a 12-week-old fetus reacts when it is shredded by an abortionist. It opens the blinkers, showing really what abortion is: the murder of human life! The transformation of Nathanson’s thoughts is remarkable.
This pioneer, who played a key role in the abortion industry, flip-flopped and did not mince words in his video! He named some of the best-known organizations, including the one he co-founded, accusing them of “a permanent conspiracy of silence that keeps women in the dark about the reality of abortion.” He added, “And I challenge anyone who offers abortion to show this video in real-time, or a similar video, to all women before they agree to an abortion” (The Silent Scream, Nathanson, January 27, 2012).
*** Challenging Dr. Nathanson’s Testimony
Some authorities disputed that the video accurately shows what happens during the abortion of a 12-week-old baby, accusing Nathanson of “rigging” the recording in various ways, for example by speeding it up to make believe that the baby is agitated because of the instruments of the abortionist. Some dispute the fact that a baby can feel the pain at 12 weeks. Others are protesting against the use of the word baby instead of a fetus. But here’s what is undeniable: Dr. Nathanson was at the forefront of the pro-abortion movement and he is largely responsible for the current situation. He was one of the main proponents of the liberalization of abortion, but something led him to bitterly regret his past actions. He changed his point of view when he worked in an obstetrics department. He made it clear that religion had nothing to do with his change of belief, but it is clear that he felt immense guilt from that time. Whether you use the word fetus or baby, the fact is that you clearly see a little human being at 12 weeks old. The terms used to speak more about those who pronounce them than about the child himself. A baby is desired, while a fetus is not.
Other Camp Changes
Dr. Bernard Nathanson is not alone at the heart of this controversy that helped open Pandora’s box and now tries to send the problem back to the back of the box. In many ways, Norma McCorvey is another famous person in the United States who helped open this box. Perhaps you know her more under her pseudonym Jane Roe, whose name appears in Roe v. Wade. She also changed sides and became an active spokesperson for the anti-abortion movement.
*** The Story and Testimony of McCorvey
McCorvey’s story is both fascinating and tragic. Like Nathanson, she came from a dysfunctional family. His parents had divorced and his mother was an alcoholic. Norma became involved with the law at the age of 10 and was sent to a foster family. Despite her lesbian relationship, she had three children, two of whom were entrusted for adoption and the third withdrawn against her will.
She worked in a working-class environment, before ending up in an abortion clinic. There she discovered Operation Rescue (O.R.), a group of anti-abortion activists. Over time, she began to know more about O.R. because she worked in the same building. She often met Emily, a 7-year-old girl. As the adults spoke to her intellect, Emily touched Norma’s heart. She was shaken when she learned that Emily’s mother had almost aborted her. Through this relationship and her interaction with members of O.R., who became her friends, she began to change sides. However, she still thought at that time that an abortion in the first trimester was acceptable.
Norma McCorvey described the straw that broke the camel’s back in her book The Jane Roe Affair, co-authored with Gary Thomas. While providing telephone reception for O.R., her gaze fell on a poster and the truth of the situation was too strong for her:
“The poster represented the development of a fetus from conception to birth. I began to look at the faces of the babies represented and the eyes of these children moved me.
“Those eyes were so sweet. Just looking at these unborn children, made my heart ache […]
“Even before I knew it, I was in tears again […] and I stayed there.
“That’s when I realized.
“Norma,” I said to myself, “they are right.
“I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been pregnant three times and had had three deliveries. I should have known. And yet, there was something on this poster that made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the image of this tiny embryo of ten weeks and I thought: It’s a baby! It was as if scales had suddenly fallen from my eyes allowing me to suddenly understand the truth.
” It’s a baby!
“I was shattered … I had to face the horrible reality. With abortion, it was not “products of conception” nor “late rules”. They were children who were killed in the womb of their mother.
“All these years I was wrong. By signing this affidavit, I was wrong. While working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. It was no longer the first, second, or third quarter. Abortion – at any time – was a mistake. It was so obvious. Painfully obvious ” (Editions of the New Man, 2008, pages 275-277, translation Aude Thiercelin and Thomas Arnauld).
Bernard Nathanson and Norma McCorvey are just two abortion actors who have changed their minds. But we are convinced that they are not the only ones. Some people just need to be educated about all those interesting facts about abortions to change their minds about abortion.
Note: Source – This article is from an article written by Gerald Weston in a journal published in July-August 2018.