9. The Scientific Argument Against Abortion
The main argument that I see pitted against pro-life arguments is that they're based purely on religion, not scientific evidence -- so out of curiosity, I began researching to find out if there was actually any scientific basis to argue against abortion. And it turns out, not only does it exist, but there's a plethora of it -- and most shockingly, a lot of it actually comes from pro-abortion sources. And I'm not talking about some random blogs, news sites or whatever; I'm talking about studies from the NIH, Guttmacher Institute (the world's leading pro-abortion research organization, the research branch of Planned Parenthood), credible scientific sources.
So below, I will be using information and statistics from those sources to debate some of the most common pro-choice arguments that I've seen and heard. They will not include religious arguments or personal moral arguments; only arguments that are claimed to be factual and/or based on science. They will not include what I call "interpreted value of life" -- which basically means that no "advantage" in the argument will be given to the mother because of the fact that she's already a fully developed adult, and no "advantage" in the argument will be given to the baby because of the innocence/preciousness of a child, etc. It means I am arguing solely off the basis of every human life being of equal value, regardless of age or perceived moral value.
EDIT 1::::: Since a great many people would rather make assumptions about my personal beliefs rather than focusing on the actual points made in this post, I will clarify those beliefs here. I believe abortion should be illegal, WITH exceptions specifically for the following circumstances: 1: rape and incest, 2: danger to the life or long term health of the mother, 3: ectopic pregnancy (method of diagnosis should be improved to avoid destroying healthy pregnancies), 4: when the mother is under the age of 16 (with a reasonable gestational age limit). I believe comprehensive sex ed should be taught with the goal of preventing pregnancy. I believe in supporting organizations that provide resources and care for mothers and children.
I also believe, somewhat controversially I'm sure, that if a man gets a woman that he is not married to pregnant, he should be held responsible by the law to financially provide for that child. It would be similar to child support payments from a dissolved marriage, and would greatly ease the financial burden on the woman. I also believe that if a couple is "done having children", then either the woman should have a hysterectomy, or the man a vasectomy. A vasectomy is far less invasive, so I tend to lean toward that. I also think better versions of male birth control need to be developed and available.
---------------------------------------------
1. "But, what if an abortion is medically necessary?"/"What if the pregnancy is a threat to the woman's health?"
Only 1.14% of abortions annually are performed because of "medical reasons", which includes mental health reasons. However, there is actually no medical circumstance or complication where an abortion is necessary. Alan Guttmacher himself said: "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life." (“Abortion — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” in The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press, 1967) Alan Guttmacher was the Obstetrician and Gynecologist-In-Chief at Mount Sinai Hospital for 10 years before becoming president of the Planned Parenthood Federation (preceded by Margaret Sanger).
Even as far back as the 80s when medicine was not as advanced, Surgeon General Dr. Everett Koop said this: “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.” He was backed up by former abortionist Bernard Nathanson: "The situation where the mother’s life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: The birth of a healthy child.”
Edit for clarification: I included those "outdated" quotes specifically to make a point that even when medical technology was not as advanced, abortion was still not regarded as necessary to save the life of a mother. I also included Alan Guttmacher's quote specifically because of who he was -- I think it's a bit telling that the *president of Planned Parenthood* said abortion was never necessary. But I do have more recent sources:
"However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions." (2019, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6457018/)
"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.” (2012, https://www.dublindeclaration.com/)
“They did not cite even one example where an abortion, the intentional killing of a living child in utero, would be superior to delivering that child. There are cases when the baby will not survive the separation due to gestational age, we call these previable separations. These separations are done with the intent to save both if possible, but at least to save the life of one. Previable separations are not the same as elective abortions.” (Dr. Donna Harrison, AAPLOG)
“what women need to know is that even in the most high-risk pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure. There are times when it may be necessary to give a pregnant mother medical treatments which may, tragically, result in the loss of the baby. It is important to understand that these treatments are NOT abortions." (Dr. Kendra Kolb: https://prolifereplies.liveaction.org/medically-necessary/)
Late-term abortions are a 3-day procedure, which involves artificially dilating the woman's cervix -- a c-section takes about 30 minutes. If the woman's life is in immediate danger, it is both illogical and dangerous to prolong the risk for 3 days and put further stress on the woman's body to deliver a dead baby, rather than perform a safe c-section to deliver a living one, both removing the risk to the woman's life AND preserving the life of her baby. Even if the baby is premature, modern technology provides a significant chance that the baby will live. A baby was actually born in Iowa at 21 weeks and 10 ounces -- and he just turned 1, setting a new Guinness World Record. (Most premature baby to survive becomes Guinness World Record holder)
----------------------------------------------
2. "But, what about ectopic pregnancies?"
An ectopic pregnancy is where the embryo implants itself somewhere other than the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube. This is highly dangerous, because once the embryo grows big enough, the fallopian tube will burst, causing the woman to hemorrhage internally. Not only is this extremely dangerous for the woman, but it's almost always fatal for the embryo as well. But how common are they? Only about 1-2% of all pregnancies are ectopic, and ruptured ectopic pregnancy only accounts for 2.7% of pregnancy-related deaths. (Source: 2020, https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2020/0515/p599.html)
An argument could absolutely be made that in these cases where viability of the fetus is extremely unlikely anyway, an abortion would be justified. However, this comes with significant problems. Ectopic pregnancies are difficult to diagnose, because many women can be asymptomatic, and because most don't progress to the point where it would be visible on ultrasound. And the biggest problem -- about 40% of pregnancies diagnosed as ectopic are later revealed to be perfectly normal (source: 2002, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12220770/). This number is likely even higher, for two reasons: many women don't go back for a second ultrasound to check, and doctors have no incentive to report misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancies.
The standard treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is high doses of methotrexate -- which has devastating consequences for normal pregnancies, including miscarriage, severe malformations, and stillbirth. And of course, the mental health ramifications for the women who may later find out their pregnancy was perfectly healthy and didn't need to be terminated.
An ideal solution would be either surgical removal of the unviable embryo, in which case if during the surgery the embryo is not found in the fallopian tube, then re-assessment and diagnosis can proceed from there; or a targeted drug that would sufficiently terminate an embryo in the fallopian tube, but not harm embryos inside the uterus. With a 40%(+) rate of misdiagnosis, methotrexate abortions should not be the standard of treatment.
EDIT: Another alternative treatment should be researched and developed, to surgically remove the embryo from the fallopian tube, and implant it in the uterus so that the pregnancy can continue.
-----------------------------------------------
3. "But what about the woman's mental health?"
There is more than enough evidence from credible sources, including the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, BMC Medicine, and the British Journal of Psychiatry, that abortions do not solve mental health issues, and instead aggravate them. The research presented concludes that long-term mental health problems after induced abortions increase. The probability of depression, anxiety, guilt, and other mental sufferings goes up by 81% compared to mothers who carry their baby until birth. (Source: 2011, Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009 - PubMed)
-----------------------------------------------
4. "Banning abortion will kill more people than it saves"/"There will be more unsafe abortions"
Looking strictly at the numbers in this scenario, this is factually incorrect. Of the 1,270,022 (average) abortions performed in the US every year, 1.14% are "to save the mother's life" and 1.28% are "for the mother's mental health", which I've already established are unfounded reasons, but I'll leave them in for the sake of argument. 0.4% are performed due to rape or incest. 0.7% are performed due to birth defects. And the remaining 96.5% are performed for "lifestyle/convenience" reasons. Edited for clarification: The 'convenience reasons' from these studies encompass reasons like "not ready for a child"/"didn't want to make lifestyle changes"/"unwilling to take on the commitment" etc. Financial reasons are also included, because giving the baby up for adoption or utilizing Safe Haven laws would eliminate any financial responsibility. There are also many resources available from pro-life organizations, churches, local charities, Facebook groups etc, not to mention we are in an age where you can literally get paid to sit and make TikTok videos or promote products. Not saying all those things are sufficient to rely on to raise a child, but certainly could be enough to make it through a pregnancy.
The Guttmacher Institution reports that out of all women who have abortions each year, 50% of them had had at least one or more prior abortions (2007, Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies | Guttmacher Institute). The most common number of additional abortions was between 1 and 3, with 8% going on to have 4+. This makes the rest of this part mostly math.
64,771,132 abortions between 1973 - 2024 (51 years)
yearly average -- 1,270,022 abortions per year
96.5% of that is -- 1,225,571 abortions for convenience reasons
Of those, 50% (612,785) are from women who had multiple other abortions.
According to the WHO, around 47,000 women die from unsafe abortions per year. Prior to the overturn of Roe v Wade, abortion was widely available through all 9 months of pregnancy -- yet, those women still chose to conduct unsafe abortions, which shows that those women would have made that choice regardless of clinical abortions being available or not.
Statistically, 50% (23,500) of those, had they succeeded and survived, would have gone on to have at least 1-3 more abortions in their lifetime. If they each only had 2 more, it would've resulted in a total of 70,500 abortions. And that's not even considering if they had 3 (or more), which would've brought that total up to 94,000. Even if the death rate from unsafe abortions doubled, or even tripled, from an abortion ban, this 50% math would still apply -- more lives would have in fact been lost if they had not died. Objectively, 47,000 deaths are better than 70,500 or 94,000+.
--------------------------------------------------
5. "Fetuses have no organs, nervous system or consciousness"/"A fetus can't feel pain"
This is scientifically incorrect. Furthermore, as the study of fetal development continues to advance, we're discovering earlier and earlier signs of pain and consciousness. According to the CDC, 93% of abortions occur in the first trimester, at or before 13 weeks. The current science shows that neural pathways for pain perception are present as early as 7 - 8 weeks. The thalamus and brainstem, structures which indicate consciousness, are also present within the first trimester. (Source: 2021, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935428/)
Dismissing the ability of living beings to feel pain is a dangerous road to go down, especially in the healthcare industry. It wasn't too terribly long ago that doctors believed black people didn't feel pain as much as whites did; they were taught that "black bodies had fewer nerve endings than white bodies". "Black skin is thicker than white skin", they were told. (Doctors Still Believe Black People Don't Feel Pain; And It's Being Taught In Medical School - BlackDoctor.org - Where Wellness & Culture Connect)
Do you think if I kicked a dog or cat, they would feel it? After all, the top scientific experts all the way up to the 90s said that animals, in general, simply don't feel pain like humans do. Well... obviously we know better now, and we know that animals can and do feel pain just like us. Such is the advancement of science and the constant updating of knowledge. There was very little resistance in the acceptance of that discovery -- after all, we all love our furry friends -- yet people are so quick to insist that "no, a fetus can't possibly feel pain!" or default to "okay, well even if they do, it doesn't matter!" They refuse to accept those scientific facts that would make them uncomfortable, that would force them to confront the reality of their position. The argument that a fetus can't feel pain/is not conscious has long been used to dehumanize fetuses in order to make abortion more palatable.
In fact, that belief not so long ago extended to infants and newborns as well. In the 80s, doctors were still performing invasive surgeries on infants without anesthesia, because they didn't believe they could feel pain -- despite clear physical reactions. Instead, babies were injected with muscle relaxants "to stop them from moving during procedures." (2020, Neonatal pain: A journey spanning three decades - PMC)
EDIT 2:::::: I've added more sources specifically for the research of fetal pain and evidence which shows that a fetus can feel pain before the claimed 24-26 weeks -- and as early as 8-12 weeks. The claim of 24 weeks comes from the belief that a completely developed cortex is necessary to feel pain -- but this idea was never proven as fact, or even widely agreed upon in the medical field. Studies have also shown continued pain experience in adult patients with extensive damage to cortical regions previously believed to be necessary for pain experience.
(2020, https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3)
(2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7350116/)
"Fetal pain capacity and negative long-term neuroadapative phenomena have prompted anesthesiologists to recommend fetal analgesia from the second trimester onwards," (Gupta, Wimalasundera, and Moore, “Anaesthesia for Uncommon and Emerging Procedures", 2021)
"The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) affirms that it is unethical to intentionally harm an innocent human being even in the absence of the individual’s ability to perceive pain. Laboratory evidence and clinical practice during fetal surgery suggest that as early as 15 weeks gestation noxious stimulation negatively affects immature human beings. Given what we are continuing to learn, pain induced reactions likely also exist at 12 weeks and possibly earlier." (2025, https://acpeds.org/fetal-pain/)
The American Academy of Pediatrics uses pain assessment tools for extremely preterm infants born as early as 23 weeks, stating that "pain scales are essential for the rating and management of neonatal pain, and their use has been strongly recommended by the AAP and by international researchers." (2016, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26810788/)
"It can be concluded that an early form of pain may appear from the 15th week of gestation onward. Bearing in mind the dominant role of the reticular formation of the mesodiencephalon, which is marked by a wide divergence of afferent information, a sense of pain transmitted through it is diffuse and can dominate the overall perception of the fetus." -- "The pain inhibition mechanisms are not sufficiently developed during intrauterine development, which is another factor leading to increased intensity of pain in the fetus. All this points to the fact that the fetus is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli, and that this fact should be taken into account when performing invasive medical procedures on the fetus." (2016, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5115678/)
Even now, pro-abortion organizations can't agree with each other on the matter. Some say 22 weeks, some say 24 or 26. However, a preemie can survive being born as early as 23 weeks, and they most definitely feel and react to pain.
----------------------------------------------------
These are some of the main arguments; obviously there are more personal/moral/religious ones that I didn't include, but I can easily debate those as well. This is a topic I've become super passionate about especially after researching and reading all the actual science around it, rather than biased media reports, sensationalized articles, and emotional fearmongering posts on social media. I highly suggest no matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on to really research it in depth, both to educate yourself and to be able to compose a competent argument defending your position, with credible sources to back yourself up.
If you have any points you want to bring up or you want me to debate/debunk, feel free to comment them! I'll likely be adding more to this post as time goes on and I see more arguments/research more on specific ones.
And lastly, if you actually read through this whole post, thank you, I appreciate you! And I appreciate the fact that you didn't just dismiss it immediately because you disagreed. I truly believe media literacy is dying and in a world where 99% of media is biased, and a lot of people can't be bothered to find credible literature to learn from, we are COOKED if we don't start shaping up LMAO.
EDIT 3:::::: Adding more sources, points, and counterarguments from both the comments below and other posts/arguments. These will include both scientific and emotional arguments and talking points. Several people have commented that my sources are "outdated", while proceeding to use sources of their own that are 20 years old. I will not be playing the "rules for thee but not for me" game. I've also added clarification on why I've used certain quotes and sources, and added dates to easily know what year the sources linked are from (where a date is given).
1. "Abortions aren't just terminating a unwanted fetus. It's also removing of miscarriage leftovers, removing of a dead or no quality of life fetus."
The goal of an abortion is specifically to produce a dead fetus. The removal of a fetus that has already died from natural causes, or "miscarriage leftovers" is not an abortion.
----------------------------------------------------------
2. "Abortion bans lead to an increase in live births — but also infant deaths. The impacts were worse among certain populations: Black infants, for example, died at a rate 11% higher than would have been expected in the absence of bans."
It's kind of a no-brainer that when the number of births *in general* goes up, the number of infant deaths will also go up. This isn't indicative of infant deaths being "caused" by an abortion ban -- it's simply what happens when there's an increase in births. It's a bit like how people try to use statistics to say that certain groups of people commit more crime than others -- but when the population of that group is much higher in general, of course there will be a higher number of crimes. As far as it affecting certain populations, there are other factors (such as discrimination in healthcare) that influence that. It's not an abortion problem, it's a lack of indiscriminate care problem. "There was also evidence to suggest that the increase in infant mortality was partly driven by an increase in congenital birth defects." -- Yep, all that stuff will increase when the general birth rate increases. It's normal and to say "these terrible things happened because of an abortion ban!" is misleading and makes for sensational headlines.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. "if one considers themselves pro-life, then why aren’t they vegan?"
There isn't really any science to counter this point as it's purely an emotional argument, but if we're talking about personal beliefs, then yes, I believe human lives take priority over the lives of animals. That doesn't mean I believe animals should suffer or be farmed in bad conditions. I am also against practices such as crabs and lobsters being cooked alive. Animals can absolutely feel pain, have emotions, and are often very smart, but they do not compare even remotely to the sentience, complexity and ability of human beings. Humans have eaten meat and animal products since the beginning of time. It is essential to basic nutrition, and I could go into a whole other debate about why veganism is not a viable diet for humans another time.
----------------------------------------------------------
4. "As you have said yourself, it (a late term abortion) is an invasive, days-long procedure. But those abortions happen because there is simply no way to save the fetus' life."
So I say again, if there is no way to save the fetus' life and it will die anyway, why risk an invasive days-long procedure that prolongs the risk to the mother, rather than performing a c-section that can be done in under an hour? If the fetus truly will die either way, then a c-section is *still* the quickest option to eliminate the threat to the mother's life. And if by chance the fetus survives, then that's a bonus that would've otherwise been impossible from a D&E. A D&E is also incredibly brutal to the fetus, which at this point would absolutely be able to feel pain. "First, do no harm" -- removing a doomed fetus via c-section and allowing it to pass naturally is surely preferable to a violent death and dismemberment via D&E.
----------------------------------------------------------
5. "The overturning of Roe v. Wade has made the treatment of EPs harder due to the limitations placed on abortion care."
Every single state that has restricted or banned abortion has exceptions that include danger to the life of the mother.(https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/considering-abortion/abortion-ban-exceptions-state-by-state) Medical practitioners misinterpereting said exceptions leading to delayed treatment is not the fault of the law.
----------------------------------------------------------
6. "you will not believe the shock I shocked when the topic of Black people not feeling pain was brought up."
The reason I even brought this up in my post was to make a point that scientists and doctors and "experts" are not immune to stupid and biased ways of thinking. Which they often let dictate their research, and presume to claim as facts. Hence why such a mentality is still unfortunately being taught in some medical schools.
Also, if you really want to talk about racism in the medical field, you can read alllllll about how Planned Parenthood started, and why. I'll give you a hint -- it involves eugenics and trying to stop black babies from being born. Good old Alan Guttmacher, you remember him from earlier in the post -- he was also the vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, which promoted "racial betterment" (ew) and actively sought to prevent "undesirables" from procreating. The abortion industry is absolutely *steeped* in racism and has been from the very beginning.
----------------------------------------------------------
7. "mothers still feel like they HAVE to get an abortion. So instead of focusing on the what, we should be focusing on the why."
I do agree here, and of course the answer is not black-and-white. Yes there are an overwhelming majority of those convenience reasons why women get abortions, however, it's also exacerbated by the loud pro-choice message of "having a baby will ruin your life! You can't have a successful career with kids! You'll wind up a broke single mom forever!" as well as pressure from family, "my daughter will NOT be a single mother/don't come crawling back to us for help if you keep it/this is an embarrassment to our family" and threats from partners, "if you keep it I'll leave you" etc. Overall, the stigma and shame of being a single mother still exists and that's a major contributing factor. It is difficult to sway public opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------
8. "Pro lives don't even care about children. All they want is control on women's bodies and rights. Notice how most pro lives are men?"
No I haven't, because it's not true. "Gender differences in the view that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances are even smaller, with an average gap of two points since 1990. For the past four years, there has been no difference, with 19% of both men and women saying that abortion should be totally illegal." (Source: 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/235646/men-women-generally-hold-similar-abortion-attitudes.aspx)
"Pro lives don't even care about children" -- Christians, the majority of whom are overwhelmingly pro-life, make up the largest demographic for adoptions. "5 percent of practicing Christians in the United States have adopted, which is more than twice the number of all adults who have adopted. In addition, a survey showed that 38 percent of practicing Christians had seriously considered adoption, while only 26 percent of all adults had." (Source: https://adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most) Pretty much every pro-life organization, charity, church, and group has resources dedicated to helping mothers, their children and women in general. There is absolutely no basis to claim that pro-lifers "don't care about children".
----------------------------------------------------------
9. "Abortion is a woman's choice, not something that should matter to anyone else."
That may be your opinion, but any choice which affects another life should absolutely matter to people. Also, just because someone makes the choice doesn't mean it's not a bad choice, or that it won't have consequences. People make horrible choices all the time that matter to others. People choose to kill pets simply because they don't want to take care of them, when there are so many other options -- and that absolutely matters to people, and that person faces the consequences of anger and shame from others. And in many places, legal trouble. "It's that person's choice" doesn't magically entitle them to do whatever they want, or prevent others from caring about it -- and it shouldn't.
EDIT 4::: Necroing this 3-month-old post to add this little exchange I had with somebody.
"Abortion is a medical procedure, you don't get to abolish it just because you and people like you think it's immoral."
My response to this was that we've absolutely abolished barbaric "medical procedures" that were found to be unethical, lobotomies for example. They asked how abortions were "barbaric" -- to which I'm reminded that most people don't even know what an abortion entails, or even what different types there are. They don't want to confront that ugly truth, the gruesome side of what they're condoning. I would say abortion is even -more- barbaric, as it's entire purpose is solely to end a life, rather than the purpose of a lobotomy which, while extremely misguided, was to attempt to treat mental illness.
The 6 most common methods of abortion are: abortive pills (also called chemical abortions), vacuum aspiration, dilation and curettage (D&C), dilation and evacuation (D&E), dilation and extraction (D&X), and induction.
Studies have shown that a fetus can feel pain as early as 8 - 12 weeks. (Sources:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935428/
https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7350116/)
1. Vacuum aspiration/suction abortion -- These are performed between the 5th and 16th week, and make up 52% of all abortions. The woman's cervix is manually dilated, and a suction cannula is inserted through the cervix into the uterus. The power of the suction crushes, bends, tears and dismembers the fetus until its parts can fit through the narrow tube. Ever seen the third Aliens movie? Where the monster gets sucked out through the hole in the wall at the end? Yeah. Disgustingly brutal. The abortionist then examines the gore left behind in the machine to make sure "everything is there" before removing the cannula. Occasionally, the abortionist must manually remove "parts" left behind that couldn't fit through the tube. The inside of the uterus is then scraped with a curette. The risks of this procedure include perforation of the uterus, laceration of the cervix, hemorrhage, infection and death. Future pregnancies are also at a larger risk of miscarriage or premature delivery, due to trauma inflicted on the uterus and cervix.
2. Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) -- These take place between 14 - 22 weeks, well beyond the point where a fetus can comprehensively feel pain. They make up at least 10% of abortions every year. For perspective, a preemie can survive being born as early as 21 weeks. At this point, the baby is too large to fit through a suction tube, and the abortionist must manually and with significant force tear the baby apart with toothed clamps, forceps and other tools. They must break apart and remove each limb, the spine, the heart, the lungs, the torso, and the head. The head must be crushed in order to be pulled out, as at this point it is sizable. The abortionist knows when the head has been "properly crushed" when a white substance (the baby's brain) leaks out from the cervix. Once again, the abortionist then checks the pile of gore and lines up all the body parts to make sure they got it all. The procedure carries the same risks as the above, with the addition of potential injury and perforation to the bowels, bladder and other adjacent organs.
3. Abortion pill/chemical abortion -- These take place in the first trimester (between 1 - 13 weeks). The woman is given Mifepristone or similar drugs to cut off the supply of oxygen and nutrients to the fetus, condemning it to a slow death via suffocation and starvation. 24 - 48 hours later, the woman takes Misopristol, a drug which forces her uterus to eject the dead fetus. This involves heavy bleeding and painful contractions that can last several days. This is followed by more bleeding for several weeks to a month afterward. Maternal deaths can also occur from severe bleeding and infection.
Need I go on? I would absolutely say that tearing apart, suffocating, chemically burning, or otherwise torturing and killing a live baby which can feel every part of it is just as barbaric (even more so) than a lobotomy.
Oh, and abortionists themselves know all of this, they just don't care. Here's how Dr. Leroy Carhart, a notorious late-term abortionist described how these procedures typically go:
"The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being ripped off. When you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus… the fetus is alive. I've observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with extensive parts of the fetus removed; mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death. I know of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born as a living child with one arm.”
EDIT 5::: Adding some info I learned after taking a deep dive into ACOG, and why I will not be accepting them as a valid source of information.
Why the ACOG is not a valid source of abortion info:
ACOG is an "abortion advocacy" organization -- you honestly think they're going to be 100% truthful about what they're pushing for?Nobody's going to say "help us legalize a procedure that painfully kills babies". They claim on their website that "science has conclusively decided" a fetus can't feel pain until 24 weeks or after -- but the science has never been conclusive -or- decided. The "experts" have never been able to agree on it. ACOG was involved in Dobbs v. Johnson; they have a direct conflict of interest.
The organization was taken over in the 60s by members of Planned Parenthood, the Population Council and the American Eugenics Society. ACOG actively redefines and sterilizes terms used to describe abortions to make them seem more palatable -- labelling terms like "late-term abortion" as "intentional use of inflammatory language". They also refuse to acknowledge the existence of embryonic heartbeats by instead redefining them as "pulsing cells", "fetal pole cardiac activity" and "embryonic pulsing". They are not interested in science or facts, their interests are solely furthering the abortion industry any way they can -- even if they have to lie and gaslight their way to the finish line.
In 2019, ACOG's Green Journal even published a study cross-examining their own ACOG Fellows -- and found that less than 25% of ACOG's membership was actually willing to provide abortions. Among the doctors questioned about the procedure, 1 in 3 cited personal, moral or religious reasons for not providing abortion services.
ACOG claims that though they are pro-choice, they "don't oppose those with a different viewpoint". This is easily and laughably proven incorrect -- ACOG has a lengthy history of censoring pro-life doctors, playing "fact-checker" against pro-life organizations, aiding attacks against pro-life pregnancy help centers, and has actively tried to discredit abortion pill reversal medications. They are not only harming pro-life organizations, but also the women who seek help from these pregnancy centers. It appears they are only "pro-choice" when it comes to taking an abortive pill, but not when the woman regrets her choice and tries to reverse it to save her baby.
ACOG claims that they "want abortion to be 'rare' ", but when a shortage of abortion providers occurred in the 90s, the National Abortion Federation and ACOG convened a symposium "to address the shortage". More recently, representatives from ACOG took part in California's "Future of Abortion Council", an effort to expand abortion in the state. ACOG even advocates for family physicians and non-physicians to become abortion providers, so that abortion can become more common. ACOG's 2022 annual report contains nearly 3 dozen mentions of abortion and its advocacy in favor of it. Its political action group (ACOG Action) is trying to force federal taxpayers to fund abortions by ending the Hyde Amendment, which was put in place to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion.
ACOG claims they are "not influenced by Big Abortion" -- but the money trail doesn't lie, I fear. ACOG has been funded by the abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories, the Packard Foundation (a Danco investor), the Buffett Foundation, and the Gates Foundation -- all openly pro-abortion groups. ACOG itself has funded the BCGRH, where abortionists are trained, and has granted Planned Parenthood's California branch $20,000 of taxpayer money.
In conclusion, ACOG is full of shit and not a reliable source of information.
EDIT 6:::: Just wanted to point out a little irony because of the comments on this Ammy person's blog that made it to the top blogs.
One of the go-to parroted arguments from pro-abortion leftists is that "pro-life people don't actually care about pregnant women or the babies after they're born" -- I've already covered this point somewhat earlier in the post, but now writing this after the election of Zohran Mahmdani as mayor of New York, the hypocrisy is laughable. He, like many other leftist politicians and groups (such as ACOG mentioned above) is vowing to shut down pro-life pregnancy help centers.
The very fact that these help centers exist in the first place already thwarts the argument, but the fact that they openly attack and try to destroy them is further proof that THEY don't actually give a shit about the women or the babies. They attack our help centers, threaten our resources and charities, arrest and trespass us for giving resources to women outside of abortion clinics, and then shout that we aren't doing anything.
Side note, there's a reason why 90% of the commenters on her absolute nothingburger of a post are literal 12-year-olds. It's because most, of not ALL of them have zero clue what they're actually agreeing with, they just know "omg yasss queen, women's rights or whatever". Literal lemmings who haven't even hit high school level biology yet, and are somehow convinced they're the most educated demographic in the world.
This blog originally received 153 Kudos.