So, I re-shared a post that noted that abortions are never medically necessary, and was subject to a 'face check' by Facebook. As expected, the 'fact check' repeated the false claim that abortions are sometimes medically necessary and, as expected, the linked article relied on willful lies in order to advance that false claim. No surprise there, but I had some free time, so I felt it would be helpful to explore the kind of perfidiousness we're dealing with here.
So, at the top it labels the fact that preterm delivery is an alternative abortion as being 'factually inaccurate' because, as the authors claim, this is only an option if the foetus is at a gestational age for it to survive outside of the mother's body. However, this is manifestly untrue. Preterm delivery can be carried out at any point. You see, what they're doing here is implying that those of us who are pro-life are claiming that the life of the unborn child can be saved every time - which is not true.
This confusion relies on purposefully confusing abortion - the purposeful destruction of the unborn child - with necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother that may or may not result in the loss of life of her unborn child. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb. However, that's manifestly not the same as an abortion.
In a section just below that, the 'fact-check' article then claims that noting that the treatments for ectopic pregnancies and cancer not being abortion is somehow 'cherry picking' and then makes the false claim that the correct treatment for bleeding due to placenta previa or ruptured membranes with infection is an abortion - which is manifestly and palpably untrue.
The appropriate treatment for placenta previa is an emergency c-section. Incidentally, notice how they say bleeding as a result of placenta previa? That's because Life Site News published an article quoting actual medical professionals who aren't paid shills for the abortion industry pointing out that an abortion in response to placenta previa is almost certainly inappropriate because it is likely to cause the bleeding in the first place. However, either way, emergency c-section is still the appropriate treatment because an abortion would take much longer and present much more risk to the mother.
As far as appropriate treatments for a ruptured membrane and infection during pregnancy is concerned, the appropriate treatments depend upon a variety of factors, but at no point is an abortion ever 'medically necessary'. The appropriate treatments can be: antibiotics, corticosteroids, labour induction, or preterm delivery. Note how absolutely none of these are abortions? That's because the authors of this article 'fact-check' are once again purposefully conflating between the intentional killing of an unborn child with medical procedures that may or may not result in their death unintentionally.
However, the icing on the cake is when they point to the case of the death of Savita Halappanavar from what they say was a result of being "denied an abortion". However, Savita died as a result of sepsis that occurred from a miscarriage that went undiagnosed because she was sent home without a proper check up. When miscarriage occurs, an abortion becomes impossible because the unborn child is already dead. So, once again, the pro-abortionists are lying to you.
Now, I did some digging and it becomes apparent why; aside from the fact that this is a purely politically motivated hit-piece designed to suppress the truth, the authors in question directly benefit from the abortion industry. In other words, they have a vested interest in the continued legality of abortions because they directly profit from it. We live in a world where so-called medical professionals willing lie to you about abortion because to admit the truth would result in their losing out monetarily.
People who literally profit from the wholesale slaughter of the most defenceless among us are deliberately lying so that people won't call for the immediate criminalisation of such an abhorrent act, and this is being pushed on Facebook as being 'non-partisan' and 'unbiased' 'fact-checking'. I sincerely hope they repent, because Jesus was very clear that those who victimised children were going to suffer big time if they choose hell over God.
No comments:
Post a Comment