Self-described “uterus ripper outer” declares that a fetus “needs permission to reside in a uterus”

By Dave Andrusko

Leah Torres

Remember Utah abortionist Leah Torres? We wrote about the easily-provoked Torres back in March.

Active on Twitter , after chastising pro-lifers because they “cannot open their eyes and see past blind hatred and ignorance in order to view a greater good,” Torres went on to memorably tweet

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.

That’s actually what Torres wrote. Honest. (It’s since been deleted. Wonder why.)

Torres was back at this week. She jumped into a twitter debate between a “pro-choicer” and a pro-life “Army wife.” After the Army wife noted

You seem to not understand that to become a child, a fetus has to develop. That’s why I asked [how children come into existence].

Torres chimed in

And to become a fetus, one needs permission to reside in someone’s uterus and put that person’s health in jeopardy.

“Permission”? Is the unborn child supposed to raise her hand and ask, “Hey, is it okay if I temporarily reside in your womb since you and your partner put me there in the first place?”

Of course, if the baby forgot to ask “permission” early on, she certainly couldn’t ask later. Why? Because Torres is busy cutting her spinal cord so she can’t scream, let alone ask. (BTW, responding to Torres’ March tweet, one poster asked, “Do you explain to your own patients that you sever the spinal cord before the baby has an opportunity to scream?”)

Torres then went back and forth with Jeryl Bier, who contributes to the Weekly Standard. Near the middle of the exchanges Bier remarks

The moment a child is born, the child has no right to be taken care of by his parent’s? They should be allowed to let the child die with no consequences?

To which Torres replies impatiently.

Way different once the umbilical cord is cut. How do you not know this?

How so, asks Bier.

Because once the cord is cut, there is no longer the utilization of someone else’s physiology.

Biers cogently observes

Yes, there is still that utilization: If no one else is around when a child is born, the woman who gave birth to it must use her “physiology” to care for the child, and parents are legal required to care for and provide for a child unless the child is given up for adoption.

Torres’ feeble comeback (which invites Bier’s devastating counter) is

You know a fetus is physiologically different from a born baby. Stop, you look silly.

To which Bier remarks

Of course there are differences. Breathing air is one. But is that the determining factor? How many differences are there 1 minute before birth vs 1 minute after? The fetus/baby is still completely dependent on someone. What makes terminating 100% right before & 100% wrong after?

Which is why Torres abruptly ends the exchange. What is she to say? She could be honest and admit that the logic of her position is….infanticide. But…not likely.

Oh, what tangled webs we weave….