Abortionist tweeted You know fetuses can’t scream, right? I transect the cord 1st

[Penelope]

Special. Just special. On the bright side this "doctor" doesn't try to pretty up what she does for a living.

I wonder if she's pen pals with Kermit Gosnell?

"Abortion provider” Leah Torres tweeted:

No.

You know fetuses can’t scream, right? I transect the cord 1st so there’s really no opportunity, if they’re even far enough along to have a larynx.

I won’t apologize for performing medicine. I’m also a “uterus ripper outer,” if that’s how you’d like to describe hysterectomy. https://t.co/lng0W3ta5J

— Leah Torres, MD (@LeahNTorres) March 11, 2018"

‘Villain Explaining His Plan’ — Ben Shapiro Slams Abortion Doctor For Sickening Tweet

You do know fetus's do not breath so to scream is not possible.

They call it the silent scream. Many abortionists and nursing assistants who have witnessed an ultra sound abortion have testified that the baby screams.



" I handled the ultrasound while the doctor performed the procedure, and I directed him while I was watching the screen

. I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth. I had seen Silent Scream a number of times, but it didn’t affect me – to me it was just more pro-life propaganda. But I couldn’t deny what I saw on the screen. After that procedure, I was shaking, literally, but managed to pull it together, and continue on with the day."

This is Joan Appleton.

"Joan Appleton was the head nurse at an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C. She was also the head of a chapter of NOW, and was completely dedicated to promoting and providing abortions."

And how many weeks was this fetus you saw? If you are anti choice what were you doing aiding an abortion Dr ?

Appleton was completely pro abortion. Head of a chapter of NOW.

"Joan Appleton was the head nurse at an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C. She was also the head of a chapter of NOW, and was completely dedicated to promoting and providing abortions."

Oops sorry I thought you were describing yourself.

 

[Silent Warrior]

It would appear that she has killed more children that any of the school shooters. Where is the outrage for the dead children?

You’d be practically wetting your pants to defend her if she performed abortions with a gun.

Nope, the death of any children is always tragic. I'm just not so idiotically political that I condemn one type of death and ignore the other. I also think we can reduce the number of shooting deaths by addressing the societal and mental problems that cause them instead of just trying to ban an inanimate object, an idea that will not work, like you and the rest of the naive espouse.

 

[ding]

It would appear that she has killed more children that any of the school shooters. Where is the outrage for the dead children?

You’d be practically wetting your pants to defend her if she performed abortions with a gun.

Nope, the death of any children is always tragic. I'm just not so idiotically political that I condemn one type of death and ignore the other. I also think we can reduce the number of shooting deaths by addressing the societal and mental problems that cause them instead of just trying to ban an inanimate object, an idea that will not work, like you and the rest of the naive espouse.

I agree. It is tragic.

I have come to the realization that they don't see the equivalency because they dehumanize them. First of all they see them as a zygotes, when in fact, most are aborted well beyond this point and are no where close to what they perceive them to be. Secondly, they don't process the significance of what it means to be specific human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.

The reason they do these things is because they are rationalizing their incongruity (i.e. hypocrisy).

Right, ricechickie?

ricechickie doesn't like me very much because I won't tell her what she wants to hear. I tell her what she needs to hear.

 

[ricechickie]

It would appear that she has killed more children that any of the school shooters. Where is the outrage for the dead children?

You’d be practically wetting your pants to defend her if she performed abortions with a gun.

Nope, the death of any children is always tragic. I'm just not so idiotically political that I condemn one type of death and ignore the other. I also think we can reduce the number of shooting deaths by addressing the societal and mental problems that cause them instead of just trying to ban an inanimate object, an idea that will not work, like you and the rest of the naive espouse.

I agree. It is tragic.

I have come to the realization that they don't see the equivalency because they dehumanize them. First of all they see them as a zygotes, when in fact, most are aborted well beyond this point and are no where close to what they perceive them to be. Secondly, they don't process the significance of what it means to be specific human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.

The reason they do these things is because they are rationalizing their incongruity (i.e. hypocrisy).

Right, ricechickie?

ricechickie doesn't like me very much because I won't tell her what she wants to hear. I tell her what she needs to hear.

Actually, I see the woman first and foremost, since she is the living being upon whom the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is completely and utterly dependent.

I don’t have to dehumanize them, because that growing life is not under my purview. It is the sole responsibility of the woman in whom it is developing.

 

[Aba Incieni]

It would appear that she has killed more children that any of the school shooters. Where is the outrage for the dead children?

You’d be practically wetting your pants to defend her if she performed abortions with a gun.

Nope, the death of any children is always tragic. I'm just not so idiotically political that I condemn one type of death and ignore the other. I also think we can reduce the number of shooting deaths by addressing the societal and mental problems that cause them instead of just trying to ban an inanimate object, an idea that will not work, like you and the rest of the naive espouse.

I agree. It is tragic.

I have come to the realization that they don't see the equivalency because they dehumanize them. First of all they see them as a zygotes, when in fact, most are aborted well beyond this point and are no where close to what they perceive them to be. Secondly, they don't process the significance of what it means to be specific human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.

The reason they do these things is because they are rationalizing their incongruity (i.e. hypocrisy).

Right, ricechickie?

ricechickie doesn't like me very much because I won't tell her what she wants to hear. I tell her what she needs to hear.

Actually, I see the woman first and foremost, since she is the living being upon whom the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is completely and utterly dependent.

I don’t have to dehumanize them, because that growing life is not under my purview. It is the sole responsibility of the woman in whom it is developing.

Mom's sole responsibility is the safety of her child. Not the murder of it, no matter who assists her.

 

[ricechickie]

It would appear that she has killed more children that any of the school shooters. Where is the outrage for the dead children?

You’d be practically wetting your pants to defend her if she performed abortions with a gun.

Nope, the death of any children is always tragic. I'm just not so idiotically political that I condemn one type of death and ignore the other. I also think we can reduce the number of shooting deaths by addressing the societal and mental problems that cause them instead of just trying to ban an inanimate object, an idea that will not work, like you and the rest of the naive espouse.

I agree. It is tragic.

I have come to the realization that they don't see the equivalency because they dehumanize them. First of all they see them as a zygotes, when in fact, most are aborted well beyond this point and are no where close to what they perceive them to be. Secondly, they don't process the significance of what it means to be specific human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.

The reason they do these things is because they are rationalizing their incongruity (i.e. hypocrisy).

Right, ricechickie?

ricechickie doesn't like me very much because I won't tell her what she wants to hear. I tell her what she needs to hear.

Actually, I see the woman first and foremost, since she is the living being upon whom the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is completely and utterly dependent.

I don’t have to dehumanize them, because that growing life is not under my purview. It is the sole responsibility of the woman in whom it is developing.

Mom's sole responsibility is the safety of her child. Not the murder of it, no matter who assists her.

Opinions vary.

 

[Aba Incieni]

You’d be practically wetting your pants to defend her if she performed abortions with a gun.

Nope, the death of any children is always tragic. I'm just not so idiotically political that I condemn one type of death and ignore the other. I also think we can reduce the number of shooting deaths by addressing the societal and mental problems that cause them instead of just trying to ban an inanimate object, an idea that will not work, like you and the rest of the naive espouse.

I agree. It is tragic.

I have come to the realization that they don't see the equivalency because they dehumanize them. First of all they see them as a zygotes, when in fact, most are aborted well beyond this point and are no where close to what they perceive them to be. Secondly, they don't process the significance of what it means to be specific human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.

The reason they do these things is because they are rationalizing their incongruity (i.e. hypocrisy).

Right, ricechickie?

ricechickie doesn't like me very much because I won't tell her what she wants to hear. I tell her what she needs to hear.

Actually, I see the woman first and foremost, since she is the living being upon whom the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is completely and utterly dependent.

I don’t have to dehumanize them, because that growing life is not under my purview. It is the sole responsibility of the woman in whom it is developing.

Mom's sole responsibility is the safety of her child. Not the murder of it, no matter who assists her.

Opinions vary.

What is your opinion? Is her responsibility to kill what she has helped to create? Does the baby's co-creator have a choice?

 

[ricechickie]

Nope, the death of any children is always tragic. I'm just not so idiotically political that I condemn one type of death and ignore the other. I also think we can reduce the number of shooting deaths by addressing the societal and mental problems that cause them instead of just trying to ban an inanimate object, an idea that will not work, like you and the rest of the naive espouse.

I agree. It is tragic.

I have come to the realization that they don't see the equivalency because they dehumanize them. First of all they see them as a zygotes, when in fact, most are aborted well beyond this point and are no where close to what they perceive them to be. Secondly, they don't process the significance of what it means to be specific human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.

The reason they do these things is because they are rationalizing their incongruity (i.e. hypocrisy).

Right, ricechickie?

ricechickie doesn't like me very much because I won't tell her what she wants to hear. I tell her what she needs to hear.

Actually, I see the woman first and foremost, since she is the living being upon whom the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is completely and utterly dependent.

I don’t have to dehumanize them, because that growing life is not under my purview. It is the sole responsibility of the woman in whom it is developing.

Mom's sole responsibility is the safety of her child. Not the murder of it, no matter who assists her.

Opinions vary.

What is your opinion? Is her responsibility to kill what she has helped to create? Does the baby's co-creator have a choice?

My opinion is that she is the sole person who can support the life of the growing fetus, and therefore, she is the one who has the right to keep it growing, or not, until such time as the baby can be born and responsibility can be transferred to another, should it be too much for the woman to bear.

 

[Aba Incieni]

I agree. It is tragic.

I have come to the realization that they don't see the equivalency because they dehumanize them. First of all they see them as a zygotes, when in fact, most are aborted well beyond this point and are no where close to what they perceive them to be. Secondly, they don't process the significance of what it means to be specific human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.

The reason they do these things is because they are rationalizing their incongruity (i.e. hypocrisy).

Right, ricechickie?

ricechickie doesn't like me very much because I won't tell her what she wants to hear. I tell her what she needs to hear.

Actually, I see the woman first and foremost, since she is the living being upon whom the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is completely and utterly dependent.

I don’t have to dehumanize them, because that growing life is not under my purview. It is the sole responsibility of the woman in whom it is developing.

Mom's sole responsibility is the safety of her child. Not the murder of it, no matter who assists her.

Opinions vary.

What is your opinion? Is her responsibility to kill what she has helped to create? Does the baby's co-creator have a choice?

My opinion is that she is the sole person who can support the life of the growing fetus, and therefore, she is the one who has the right to keep it growing, or not, until such time as the baby can be born and responsibility can be transferred to another, should it be too much for the woman to bear.

So the father has no say, and the mother must take full responsibility for killing not only another human being, but her own child.

Hey, it's your opinion.

 

[ricechickie]

Actually, I see the woman first and foremost, since she is the living being upon whom the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is completely and utterly dependent.

I don’t have to dehumanize them, because that growing life is not under my purview. It is the sole responsibility of the woman in whom it is developing.

Mom's sole responsibility is the safety of her child. Not the murder of it, no matter who assists her.

Opinions vary.

What is your opinion? Is her responsibility to kill what she has helped to create? Does the baby's co-creator have a choice?

My opinion is that she is the sole person who can support the life of the growing fetus, and therefore, she is the one who has the right to keep it growing, or not, until such time as the baby can be born and responsibility can be transferred to another, should it be too much for the woman to bear.

So the father has no say, and the mother must take full responsibility for killing not only another human being, but her own child.

Hey, it's your opinion.

Yes, it is.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Mom's sole responsibility is the safety of her child. Not the murder of it, no matter who assists her.

Opinions vary.

What is your opinion? Is her responsibility to kill what she has helped to create? Does the baby's co-creator have a choice?

My opinion is that she is the sole person who can support the life of the growing fetus, and therefore, she is the one who has the right to keep it growing, or not, until such time as the baby can be born and responsibility can be transferred to another, should it be too much for the woman to bear.

So the father has no say, and the mother must take full responsibility for killing not only another human being, but her own child.

Hey, it's your opinion.

Yes, it is.

Poor women. Some people want to keep them murdering their own souls, along with those of their children.

 

[ricechickie]

Opinions vary.

What is your opinion? Is her responsibility to kill what she has helped to create? Does the baby's co-creator have a choice?

My opinion is that she is the sole person who can support the life of the growing fetus, and therefore, she is the one who has the right to keep it growing, or not, until such time as the baby can be born and responsibility can be transferred to another, should it be too much for the woman to bear.

So the father has no say, and the mother must take full responsibility for killing not only another human being, but her own child.

Hey, it's your opinion.

Yes, it is.

Poor women. Some people want to keep them murdering their own souls, along with those of their children.

Ok.

 

[Aba Incieni]

What is your opinion? Is her responsibility to kill what she has helped to create? Does the baby's co-creator have a choice?

My opinion is that she is the sole person who can support the life of the growing fetus, and therefore, she is the one who has the right to keep it growing, or not, until such time as the baby can be born and responsibility can be transferred to another, should it be too much for the woman to bear.

So the father has no say, and the mother must take full responsibility for killing not only another human being, but her own child.

Hey, it's your opinion.

Yes, it is.

Poor women. Some people want to keep them murdering their own souls, along with those of their children.

Ok.

For some, it's more than OK. Ilse Koch loved the role she played, too.

 

[ricechickie]

My opinion is that she is the sole person who can support the life of the growing fetus, and therefore, she is the one who has the right to keep it growing, or not, until such time as the baby can be born and responsibility can be transferred to another, should it be too much for the woman to bear.

So the father has no say, and the mother must take full responsibility for killing not only another human being, but her own child.

Hey, it's your opinion.

Yes, it is.

Poor women. Some people want to keep them murdering their own souls, along with those of their children.

Ok.

For some, it's more than OK. Ilse Koch loved the role she played, too.

You didn’t want to know my opinion; you just want to hit me over the head with yours.

Consider me hit. You’ve come this close to calling me a Nazi.

Feel better now?

 

[Aba Incieni]

So the father has no say, and the mother must take full responsibility for killing not only another human being, but her own child.

Hey, it's your opinion.

Yes, it is.

Poor women. Some people want to keep them murdering their own souls, along with those of their children.

Ok.

For some, it's more than OK. Ilse Koch loved the role she played, too.

You didn’t want to know my opinion; you just want to hit me over the head with yours.

Consider me hit. You’ve come this close to calling me a Nazi.

Feel better now?

We've heard your opinion. It's resulted in the deaths of over 60 million human beings in the US alone.

 

[ricechickie]

Yes, it is.

Poor women. Some people want to keep them murdering their own souls, along with those of their children.

Ok.

For some, it's more than OK. Ilse Koch loved the role she played, too.

You didn’t want to know my opinion; you just want to hit me over the head with yours.

Consider me hit. You’ve come this close to calling me a Nazi.

Feel better now?

We've heard your opinion. It's resulted in the deaths of over 60 million human beings in the US alone.

Opinions don’t kill people, people kill people.

 

[ding]

It would appear that she has killed more children that any of the school shooters. Where is the outrage for the dead children?

You’d be practically wetting your pants to defend her if she performed abortions with a gun.

Nope, the death of any children is always tragic. I'm just not so idiotically political that I condemn one type of death and ignore the other. I also think we can reduce the number of shooting deaths by addressing the societal and mental problems that cause them instead of just trying to ban an inanimate object, an idea that will not work, like you and the rest of the naive espouse.

I agree. It is tragic.

I have come to the realization that they don't see the equivalency because they dehumanize them. First of all they see them as a zygotes, when in fact, most are aborted well beyond this point and are no where close to what they perceive them to be. Secondly, they don't process the significance of what it means to be specific human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.

The reason they do these things is because they are rationalizing their incongruity (i.e. hypocrisy).

Right, ricechickie?

ricechickie doesn't like me very much because I won't tell her what she wants to hear. I tell her what she needs to hear.

Actually, I see the woman first and foremost, since she is the living being upon whom the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is completely and utterly dependent.

I don’t have to dehumanize them, because that growing life is not under my purview. It is the sole responsibility of the woman in whom it is developing.

Kind of like of how Hitler saw the Germans first, eh?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Special. Just special. On the bright side this "doctor" doesn't try to pretty up what she does for a living.

I wonder if she's pen pals with Kermit Gosnell?

"Abortion provider” Leah Torres tweeted:

No.

You know fetuses can’t scream, right? I transect the cord 1st so there’s really no opportunity, if they’re even far enough along to have a larynx.

I won’t apologize for performing medicine. I’m also a “uterus ripper outer,” if that’s how you’d like to describe hysterectomy. https://t.co/lng0W3ta5J

— Leah Torres, MD (@LeahNTorres) March 11, 2018"

‘Villain Explaining His Plan’ — Ben Shapiro Slams Abortion Doctor For Sickening Tweet

Did you fact check?

 

[LoneLaugher]

A ghoulish creature.

If it were true.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody wants to tell the whole story, huh?

I wonder why? Inconvenient?