Utah abortionist Leah Torres has made a name for herself for making bold and outrageous statements about abortion online.
On Tuesday, she came up with another: It’s ok to abort an unborn baby if they do not have permission to live in their mother’s uterus.
Torres, who is active on Twitter, made the claim in response to a pro-life advocate’s defense of the unborn:
And to become a fetus, one needs permission to reside in someone’s uterus and put that person’s health in jeopardy.
— Leah Torres, MD (@LeahNTorres) November 28, 2018
Her claim quickly was met with the criticism and ridicule that it deserved. An unborn baby cannot ask his or her mother’s permission to live in her womb. It’s impossible. What’s more, the unborn baby has no say in his or her life coming into existence. Except under rare circumstances, the baby’s life came into being as a direct result of its mother’s and father’s actions. Pregnancy is a risk of sexual intercourse, even when birth control is involved.
But Torres claimed consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. She doubled down on her argument, tweeting:
A fetus has whatever rights bestowed on it by the person whose body it resides in.
No one nor nothing uses my body without my permission. https://t.co/FG03Fidymm
— Leah Torres, MD (@LeahNTorres) November 28, 2018
SUPPORT LIFENEWS!Help us take on the abortion industry please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
Later, in a back-and-forth with Weekly Standard contributor Jeryl Bier, Torres’s argument suggested that she even may support the killing of newborn babies. She argued that unborn babies do not have rights until the umbilical cord is cut – which happens after birth.
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?
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) November 28, 2018
Way different once the umbilical cord is cut. How do you not know this?
By the way, we’re all awaiting your response to @RebekahWriter.
— Leah Torres, MD (@LeahNTorres) November 28, 2018
I just replied to Rebekah.
Why is it way different once the cord is cut?
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) November 28, 2018
But you didn’t answer her questions.
Because once the cord is cut, there is not longer the utilization of someone else’s physiology.
— Leah Torres, MD (@LeahNTorres) November 28, 2018
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.
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) November 28, 2018
Earlier this year, Torres also said she cuts unborn baby’s cords so they can’t scream. She later deleted the post.
