Abortionist Who Said She Cuts Baby Vocal Chords Before Abortion So They Can't Scream Loses Medical License

submitted by scrubking from (thegatewaypundit.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I would suggest you to Google "umbilical cord transection".

She didn't clarify what exactly she was talking about.

There's not even such a thing as abortion on preborn babies. Are you for real?

It is illegal but it can be done.

If they're far along to have larynxes (start developing at around 3 months) you you cannot do a medical abortion and need to do a surgical abortion, transecting the umbilical cord is a common method of surgical abortion. Her literal words is that she transect the (umbilical) cord if they're even far enough to have larynxes (3 months). She transects the umbilical cord before the baby even know what the fuck is up - that's how there is no opportunity to scream even if they have gotten so far that they have larynxes - and even if there was opportunity to scream they couldn't because there's literally no fucking air in the womb.

She didn't clarify what she was talking about. If she was indeed talking about cutting the umbilical cord, she would have specified it. The wording of the tweet makes it highly likely that she is talking about larynxes.

If the baby is already born "pre-born" (not in the womb), you cannot perform an abortion.

As I said, it is illegal and immoral, but it still can be done. Murder can be done in hundreds of ways.

[–]alkhd 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You literally cannot reach into the womb and cut the vocal cord. It's never been done and will never be done. There is literally no reason to do it even if it could be done. Be my guest and be stuck thinking she meant cutting the vocal cord when she obviously didn't. Cutting the umbilical cord is a common way to kill a fetus, cutting the vocal cord is literally an impossible feat for an ob/gyn and accomplishes literally nothing as fetuses aren't able to scream anyway.

Killing a born baby is killing a born baby - not abortion - abortion is killing an embryo or fetus. A fetus stops being a fetus and becomes a baby once it leaves the womb (ie is born).

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Let's see the tweet shall we?

You know babies can't scream, right? I transect the cord so there is really no opportunity if they're even far enough along to have a larynx.

This talks about "screaming". The tweet she was replying to didn't. The abortionist explicitly mentions "screaming". As you have specified, babies can't scream in the womb, so it is safe to assume she was talking about preborn babies, otherwise she would've said something like "Babies can't scream in the womb", or would have atleast pointed it out, but she didn't. She is talking about killing a preborn baby.

[–]alkhd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

She said fetuses can't scream , not babies, babies definitely can and do scream. Stop misquoting and spreading fake news.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Then why would she even mention that she "cuts the cord first so there's really no opportunity"? She could've just ended it with "fetuses can't scream" why did she feel the need to explicitly mention the fact that she cuts "the cord"?

[–]alkhd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

There's no opportunity to scream (even if they hypothetically had lungs and a larynx) because the fetus dies in the womb as opposed to dying in the process of being removed from the womb.

You don't have to transect the umbilical cord before removing the fetus from the womb, it's optional, transecting the cord lets the fetus die in a probably relatively nicer way and reduces chances for complications during the extraction from the womb. Without transecting the cord first you're basically forcing a stillbirth.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Alright, lets look at her tweet logically.

I transect the cord 1st so there's really no oppurtunity, if they're even far enough along to have a larynx

Now lets divide it up

I transect the cord 1st(a)
so there's really no oppurtunity(b)
if they're even far enough along to have a larynx(c)

(a) implies that she transects "the cord"
(b) says that there is "no oppurtunity"(in this context, she is referring to screaming because of the tweet she was replying to)
(c) continues the statement (b) with ...if they're far enough along.
Lets take a look at (b)

so there's really no oppurtunity

This (b) depends on (a)
So, if we turn (a) into negative, i.e. if she doesn't transect the cord, she implies that there is some oppurtunity that the baby will scream if (c) is true.

[–]alkhd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I feel like I've explained it too many times. If you still don't understand it I hope that the fact that it's not even possible to transect the vocal cord combined with the fact that the person in question clarified that she meant the umbilical cord is enough.

Since they die in the womb if you do an umbilical transection, there's no opportunity for them to scream, even in a hypothetical world where fetuses were able to scream.

Nobody ever said "oh I can see the vocal cord" during birth. In order to reach the vocal cord you would need cut open whoever is pregnant. I seriously don't understand how this fact doesn't stop you believing that she meant the vocal cord. The only way to prevent a fetus to scream if it could scream is by having it die in the womb, before trying to extract it,which is what transcecting the umbilical cord achieves.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You haven't refuted the central point of my reply. You are just repeating old arguments. First refute the new argument I have provided.(Using logic)

[–]alkhd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I give up, you are either trolling or you are detached from reality.