According to the New York Times "Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.

If you needed any proof it's now official; we're living in a perpetual 1984 where hate is love, war is peace, and pregnancy is killing while abortion saves lives.

The author of the New York Times article is Dr. Warren Hern who makes his living by butchering unborn babies.  

Here's an illustration of a 20 week old unborn baby; this what the women to be that Hern kills for a living look like:

His victims aren't "blobs of cells" or part of their mother's bodies. They are people just like you and me but younger.  Every one of us was just like the children that Dr. Hern earns money by killing at some point in our lives.

The bad Dr. starts his article off by saying:

"Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. Women die from being pregnant."

Women die from plastic surgery too yet the bad Dr. isn't condemning that.

The bad Dr's argument, to the extent that he has one, is that even though the new Alabama law allows an abortion when the mother's life is at risk is that pregnancy itself is a dangerous thing even if the mother's life isn't obviously at risk.

What he's saying is that since any pregnancy can result in death, just as any car trip can, a Dr. should be able to declare that every woman who wants an abortion should get it because there's always a chance that she could die from her pregnancy.

His own numbers show that what he's calling for is the mass execution of babies who wouldn't threaten their mother's health because a tiny fraction of them might.

He says that in Alabama 11.9 women died out of every 100,000 who became pregnant.  That's 0.01%.

Another way to look at that is that if Hern had his way and abortion at any point in time and for any reason were legal in Alabama then for every woman who lived 8402 babies would have to be killed. Which means roughly 4201 unborn women to be would die for every one born woman who didn't die.  

Currently one of the hot arguments against the death penalty pushed by leftists like Dr. Hern is that innocent people are being executed.  That's actually a valid concern.  However what Dr. Hern is saying is that 99.99% of the babies he wants to see executed are innocent.  Can you imagine even the staunchest proponent of the death penalty continuing to support it if they knew for sure that 99.99% of the people being executed were in fact innocent?

Yet Dr. Hern is all in for killing hundreds of thousands of unborn babies who don't threaten their mother's lives. Of course since he makes money by killing the unborn it's not unfair to wonder if money is his real motivation.  Essentially he's a hitman who's arguing against laws prohibiting murder.

But his argument also fails because it presumes that women die from pregnancies with no warning.  If the women who do die could be saved if they were treated promptly then his argument falls apart.  Like Thanos who choose to kill half of all life in the universe rather than double the size of the universe Hern is saying we should kill babies rather than improve the health care for pregnant women.

The Dr's bias for death is a constant in this article.  He sarcastically writes:

"Surely the Alabama legislature has carefully considered all of the above in drafting this law, which affects more than 2.5 million women in that state, some of them more than others."

He apparently is unaware that in every abortion a human being is killed and in 50%, or more if sex selection abortions occur, the victim is a woman. Apparently he doesn't think that those women are impacted more than their mothers who simply don't want to accept the consequences of their actions-- only 1% of abortions are dueto rape.

Hern tries to drum up support for his position by pointing out that Black women are more likely to die from pregnancy than white women.  That's either a racist argument that Black women are less capable of being mothers than white women or it's a call for better health care for pregnant Black women. But Hern uses it to argue that as a result we should kill more Black babies.

Hern says that in Alabama 0.03% of Black pregnancies result in the death of the mother while only 0.006% of white women's pregnancies result in death.  He makes no attempt to explain that ratio for the simple reason that if he did the answer to the problem would not be more abortions but voluntary lifestyle changes by pregnant mothers and improved pre-natal health care not killing hundreds of thousands of Black babies of whom 99.97% wouldn't hurt their mothers.

What's interesting is that Hern doesn't mention that Black women are three times more likely to abort than white women. A key part of that disparity is that Planned Parenthood targets Blacks in what Jesse Jackson called genocide against Blacks.

The real racial component of the abortion question in America is why people like Hern aren't concerned by the huge racial disparity in abortions.  In any other aspect of life if Blacks were three times more likely to have an issue than whites leftists would automatically declare that it to be prima facia evidence of racism.  But somehow the fact that abortion kills far more Blacks than whites percentage wise and the fact that abortion is the leading cause of death for Black Americans are of no interest to people like Dr. Hern.

If Dr. Hern really cared about Blacks he'd be all in for banning abortion because that would mean America would have, over time, millions of Black citizens who are currently being killed before they can help make America great again.

It's not surprising that a monster like Hern who casually chops apart babies who look like the image above for a living calls for keeping his lucrative killing for cash business alive. What is truly shocking is that the editors at the NYT are so completely unaware of reality that they had no problem with the headline. They felt completely comfortable with declaring that the process that gives us all life is killing and the process that would have killed us before we could have learned to love arugula saves lives.

The NYT's demonstrates by this that they are in Thano's camp--death is the solution life is the problem.

As Reagan pointed out everyone who supports abortion is already safely born so supporting abortion for any reason at any time, including shortly after birth, is truly selfish.

No one at the NYT would be happy if they'd been aborted but they're eager to do to others what they would not want done to themselves.

UPDATE: The original version of this article said that 99,989 babies had to die to save one woman from dying.  That assumed that the mortality rate was 1/100,000.  Since the mortality rate is actually 11.9/100,000 8402 babies, of whom 4201 are women to be, have to die to save the life of one woman.