Former Abortionist Confirms: Abortion is Not Health Care, “Never Medically Necessary”

[Belk]

Former Abortionist Confirms: Abortion is Not Health Care, “Never Medically Necessary”​

Originally posted on Feb 21, 2023 on LifeNews.com's website


Dr. John Bruchalski, the founder of Tepeyac OB/GYN in Fairfax, Virginia, wrote to correct the prevalent lie that state abortion bans are somehow endangering women’s health. And as a former abortionist himself, Bruchalski said he believes money, not sincere care for women’s health, is behind it.

“There are no advantages for a mother to end her pregnancy by an elective abortion, even in the most life-threatening circumstances,” he explained. “Elective abortions become more dangerous the further along in pregnancy, and that’s when the majority of these health complications arise.”

The Article:
Former Abortionist Confirms: Abortion is Not Health Care, “Never Medically Necessary”

The opinion of one doctor does not override the rest of the medical community.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the phrasing of their headline is a little misleading (shocker). A solitary medical professional (or even just a handful) doesn't "confirm" anything... at least not in a professional sense. It may "confirm" someone's existing biases -- which is, I suspect, the whole point of the article.

It'd be like finding one outlier with a PhD that thought the world was flat, and presenting it as "Scientist confirms the earth is flat"

 

[Diamond72]

Former Abortionist

Someday he will get to go to heaven and personally get to know all of the babies he aborted. They will keep him busy because I am sure they will all want to meet him.

 

[Belk]

Someday he will get to go to heaven and personally get to know all of the babies he aborted. They will keep him busy because I am sure they will all want to meet him.

Aborted babies automatically go to heaven? This is a bad thing?

 

[rambot]

Here is the doctor. The outlier amongst the scientific community.
And you hold him in high regard not because he's right, but because you agree with him.

 

[Diamond72]

Aborted babies automatically go to heaven? This is a bad thing?

It is if their parents do not repent and go to heaven to be with them. It can be difficult to deal with having parents abandon you. They will never have a chance to experience this world in the condition it is in. Of course they will be resurrected along with everyone else. So that is not an issue.

 

[peaceful-forest]

The opinion of one doctor does not override the rest of the medical community.

How is a multitude of agreement considered right? What and who defines right and wrong?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

How is a multitude of agreement considered right? What and who defines right and wrong?

Ultimately, "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. We collectively decide what is right and what is wrong as a society and codify that in the law. If you disagree with society's definitions of those terms, then you're free to live by your own code - so long as it doesn't conflict with society's.

 

[Pommer]

They will never have a chance to experience this world in the condition it is in.

I was having a grand ol’ time not existing, yet here I am, stuck blessed with you pleasant folk for well into my seventh decade now, not existing (again) will be a nice change, though.

 

[LesSme]

Did you not read the paragraph above that? By "intentional feticide" he's talking about elective abortions, which are not medically necessary. The paragraph right above what you quoted points out situations where abortion needs to happen to save the life of the mother.

You really need to reread the very short article because it does not say what you assert, not at all.

The paragraph you reference (which is not referring to abortions):

“Sometimes, he said an early induction is necessary to save the mother’s life, such as in the case of an infection, and her baby is too premature to survive. There also are times when pregnant mothers need chemotherapy to treat cancer and her unborn baby dies, but neither scenario involves intentionally killing the baby; the intent is to save a life, not to end one, Bruchalski continued.”

 

[NxNW]

Someday he will get to go to heaven and personally get to know all of the babies he aborted. They will keep him busy because I am sure they will all want to meet him.

If they're in heaven, won't they be happy?

 

[Yttrium]

You really need to reread the very short article because it does not say what you assert, not at all.

The paragraph you reference (which is not referring to abortions):

“Sometimes, he said an early induction is necessary to save the mother’s life, such as in the case of an infection, and her baby is too premature to survive. There also are times when pregnant mothers need chemotherapy to treat cancer and her unborn baby dies, but neither scenario involves intentionally killing the baby; the intent is to save a life, not to end one, Bruchalski continued.”

You're quibbling on terms. Early induction or chemotherapy will end the life of the fetus. The doctors know that this will happen.

 

[comana]

You really need to reread the very short article because it does not say what you assert, not at all.

The paragraph you reference (which is not referring to abortions):

“Sometimes, he said an early induction is necessary to save the mother’s life, such as in the case of an infection, and her baby is too premature to survive. There also are times when pregnant mothers need chemotherapy to treat cancer and her unborn baby dies, but neither scenario involves intentionally killing the baby; the intent is to save a life, not to end one, Bruchalski continued.”

Induction, for any reason, prior to viability is an abortion. Call it medically necessary when it is necessary to save the mother’s life, but it is still an abortion. The pregnancy is intentionally aborted.

 

[comana]

If they're in heaven, won't they be happy?

No kidding. They got a direct ticket to paradise.

 

[Belk]

How is a multitude of agreement considered right?

It is considered likely to be correct. The reason is that generally speaking expert consensus is more likely to be correct then things experts disagree on.

What and who defines right and wrong?

Each individual person.

 

[Belk]

It is if their parents do not repent and go to heaven to be with them. It can be difficult to deal with having parents abandon you. They will never have a chance to experience this world in the condition it is in. Of course they will be resurrected along with everyone else. So that is not an issue.

So... Good thing overall?

 

[USincognito]

It is if their parents do not repent and go to heaven to be with them. It can be difficult to deal with having parents abandon you. They will never have a chance to experience this world in the condition it is in. Of course they will be resurrected along with everyone else. So that is not an issue.

The fetus never repented or was baptized. How can they go to heaven? The only way is through Jesus, right?

 

[USincognito]

I was having a grand ol’ time not existing, yet here I am, stuck blessed with you pleasant folk for well into my seventh decade now, not existing (again) will be a nice change, though.

I was musing on ancient Egyptian concepts of the afterlife the other day. As I recall, if your heart balanced with the feather you went on to a heaven that basically was Egypt without the death. If you failed the test, you were destroyed and for Egyptians that was the worst thing possible.

 

[peaceful-forest]

The fetus never repented or was baptized. How can they go to heaven? The only way is through Jesus, right?

We know that babies go to heaven when they die from the Bible. There is a passage in the Old Testament about David losing his infant son that was a result from having an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba.

2 Samuel 12:22-23 NIV: ...While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Samuel 12 - New International Version

Nathan Rebukes David - The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[peaceful-forest]

It is considered likely to be correct. The reason is that generally speaking expert consensus is more likely to be correct then things experts disagree on.

Each individual person.

If each person can decide what's right and wrong, how is anything right or anything wrong? Right and wrong is a fact. Do facts change?