I have doubts about her claim:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp
-Source is extremely biased. (abortionfacts.com is a site known to have a strong pro-life bias)
-Abortion in question took place in the United States at about 7.5 months, a time period that was not elective. It was also an outlawed procedure. The government did and does not condone that abortion; therefore it has no relevance to the case of legal elective abortions. Basically, she's saying, "Hi. My mom had an illegal abortion and I almost died, so now I think ALL abortions should be illegal! Misery loves company!
-Looking at a website that tells of the causes of cerebral palsy, a condition Gianna claims to have, it lists nothing about saline. ( http://www.originsofcerebralpalsy.com/index.html )
-Even if saline abortion can cause cerebral palsy, the "fact" that this woman was aborted via saline, which is a process described as:
NRLC
A needle is inserted through the mother’s abdomen and 50-250 ml (as much as a cup) of amniotic fluid is withdrawn and replaced with a solution of concentrated salt. [53] The baby breathes in, swallowing the salt, and is poisoned.[54] The chemical solution also causes painful burning and deterioration of the baby’s skin. [55] Usually, after about an hour, the child dies. The mother goes into labor about 33 to 35 hours after instillation and delivers a dead, burned, and shriveled baby. [56] About 97% of mothers deliver their dead babies within 72 hours.[57]
This by a biased pro-life site, aimed at making the process look horrible. It is questionable that a woman who has gone through that as a fetus would a.) have been delivered at such an early time, and b.) look like this:
-According to her story, her mother was administered the saline solution three hours before the doctor showed up for work. I doubt this is standard procedure for even an illegal clinic.
- Also according to her story no witness in the “clinic” took any measures to kill her. This would show that even in the botched clinics the focus is not to “kill innocent children,” but to reclaim the rights of the mother. Puts a hole through the major pro-life argument, hmm?
If I am misinformed about anything, please bring it to my attention. This was more of a quick run-though of info than anything sweatdrop
