Partial-Birth Abortion [Archive]

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-07-2006, 10:32 PM

Continued from the Liberals confuse me - FreeConservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=392378#post392378) Thread in the Members Forum:

As to the subject of "partial-birth abortion", those are not performed on women who's only reason for an abortion is for birth control. There are always medical reasons for performing this procedure as opposed to a standard D & X, or a C-section. Banning so-called partial-birth abortion will not do away with those other two procedures.
MHB

Hello again, ooh --

Thanks for following me over, now on to the topic.

With all due respect, I must point out that's (your post above) not true.

A "D & X" IS a partial birth abortion. It came to be known as partial-birth abortion when the facts of the procedure became known and the reality understood.

Also, even the doctors linked with this procedure refute the assertion this procedure is only done for extreme cases:

AN INTERVIEW WITH W. MARTIN HASKELL, MD - (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r104:1:./temp/~r104WvZq69:e52231:)

Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortions,' Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar (September 13, 1992) (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sfl/partial-birth_abortion.htm)

"The author routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP."

"Summary

In conclusion, Dilation and Extraction is an alternative method for achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 weeks. It can be used in the third trimester.
Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia."

Doctor defends late-term abortions cleveland.com: News (http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf?/news/pd/cc11abor.html)

"Haskell testified that 80 percent of women receiving abortions after 19 weeks of gestation at his clinics in Dayton, Cincinnati and Akron are healthy mothers with healthy pregnancies. That contradicted earlier statements by proponents of the procedure, who have said it mostly helps mothers who find out late in pregnancy that their fetuses have severe defects."

NPR : 'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163)

"There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.

In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development."

This procedure is simply horrendous, and should not be legal. IF this procedure is only for emergencies, why can it be done on an outpatient basis in a clinic office? Why aren't they all performed in the hospital?

"This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped physician's office under local anesthesia."

Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortions,' Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar (September 13, 1992) (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sfl/partial-birth_abortion.htm)

The defense of this horrific procedure is so convoluted. Truly, THIS, if nothing else, is something society as a whole should come together and decry. This does NOTHING in support of the pro-abortion crowd, and is one point where both sides should unite to eliminate a very bad mistake.

brilliantLiberal

03-07-2006, 11:12 PM

There can never be an excuse for a partial birth abortion. If removal of the baby is necessary, removing it until just the head is left inside and killing it can have no more positive effect on the woman in any case than simply removing it. It is quite simply infanticide, and should be a crime.

DoctorDoom

03-08-2006, 12:02 AM

Liberals absolutely refuse to allow even the slightest limits to be placed on the slaughter of the preborn. They claim that any infringement on the "right" to kill a baby will inevitably lead to a total ban on abortion.

OTOH, whenever liberal gun grabbers propose another law to add to the 20,000 existing ones, their argument is invariably, "We only want this small limit. It's not like we want a total ban on guns."

Consistency is not a liberal's strong suit.

Edited to correct earth-shattering, capital-punishment-meriting missed typo. :rolleyes:

brilliantLiberal

03-08-2006, 12:14 AM

Liberals absolutely refuse to allow even the slightest limits to be placed onm the slaughter of the preborn.
It's been my experience, as I could document, that on this issue it's your side who wouldn't give even the slightest concession in the interests of sanity and sound policy. They're one step removed from demanding that people be charged with mass murder for masturbating.

ooh_child

03-08-2006, 05:55 PM

Hi Homes!

First, I'd like to lay a little groundwork before I get into my POV.

While it may be difficult to determine how many PBA's are performed each year, the stats I have show a rate of approx. 4,000/year. I think we could avoid many more abortions each year by focusing on my solution in the other thread. PBA's are not performed just because the pregnant woman has decided against having a baby. Here's the info I have to back up my position:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

From the site:

"One often quoted figure was that over 1000 D&Xs had been performed annually in New Jersey. From this number, many inflated national totals were estimated. But the New Jersey figure appears to be an anomaly. A single physician in a single NJ hospital had been ignoring the regulations of the state medical association and performing D&Xs in cases not involving the potential death or serious disability of the woman.

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated (Nightline program, 1997-FEB-26) a total of 3,000 to 4,000 annually in the US -- about ten a day.

Pro-life groups uncovered an internal memo by Planned Parenthood which estimated that up to 60 (0.24%) of the more than 25,000 abortions performed annually in Virginia were D&Xs. If this figure is accurate nationally, then there would be up to 2,880 D&X procedures per year in the U.S."

Now, please tell me why I should advocate focusing attention on this procedure, when we could prevent so many more pregnancies in the first place?

From the same site, some very even-handed observations as to why these procedures must be done:

"1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.

2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:

She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.

There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.

The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:

The fetus is dead.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons."

I believe if you examine Religious Tolerance's information about our discussion, you'll find a pretty good representation of my view on "partial-birth abortion", standard vs. intact D & X, & C-section operations.

I still want to focus more on birth control education & girl's attitudes about their responsibilities when they start having sex.

Regards,

MHB

ooh_child

03-08-2006, 05:57 PM

Liberals absolutely refuse to allow even the slightest limits to be placed onm the slaughter of the preborn. They claim that any infringement on the "right" to kill a baby will inevitably lead to a total ban on abortion.

OTOH, whenever liberal gun grabbers propose another law to add to the 20,000 existing ones, their argument is invariably, "We only want this small limit. It's not like we want a total ban on guns."

Consistency is not a liberal's strong suit.

Not this liberal, Doc. I support gun ownership 100%.

And it's "on", not "onm".

MHB

True Grace

03-08-2006, 06:53 PM

And it's "on", not "onm".

MHB

Wow.....that was mature! :rolleyes:

Just for that ridiculous display of childishness, I am going to stalk you from here on out and point out every typo and misspelling you make. Enjoy!

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-08-2006, 09:47 PM

Hi Homes!

Hey, ooh!

First, I'd like to lay a little groundwork before I get into my POV.

While it may be difficult to determine how many PBA's are performed each year, the stats I have show a rate of approx. 4,000/year. I think we could avoid many more abortions each year by focusing on my solution in the other thread. PBA's are not performed just because the pregnant woman has decided against having a baby.

Okay, I'll stipulate to your numbers (hypothetically for this discussion). I also agree regarding avoiding more abortions by implementing better solutions. As for your third point, I would say the actual truth probably lies somewhere between my point and yours. I purposefully avoided using links which might be viewed as having a right leaning bent, and went straight for the actually citations where I could. So if we take into consideration the information I provided, and that which you've provided, would you agree it is safe to assume that:

SOME partial-birth abortions are not really necessary in regards to issues of life and health of the mother, thus are performed because they are easier for the doctor to perform,
and
SOME partial-birth abortions are justified (especially where the fetus has died in utero)
?

Now, please tell me why I should advocate focusing attention on this procedure, when we could prevent so many more pregnancies in the first place?

Sure, be glad to tell you why. Because babies are being killed for no reason, and because this procedure is so horrendous.

In the scenario of a needed procedure (the pba) When an emergency occurs, doctors will do what they have to do to save the life of their patients and all they can do in the best interests of mother and child. I don't think anyone is contesting this, and in fact they (abortions) were probably taking place in various forms even when abortion was illegal, but it wasn't something that became common, publicized and chosen (as a method of birth control).

What I'm concerned about is the protestations over this procedure on behalf of abortion as an issue. PBA's ARE being performed when they aren't necessary or warranted, THOSE should be stopped, THOSE should offend everyone in both camps. THOSE should be the reason this procedure should be outlawed. Again, let me reiterate, when an emergency necessitates extreme action, doctors WILL take action on behalf of their patients, and I don't think ANYONE would object to this (it would most likely be between a doctor and his patient/their family, and never brought to light of public knowledge). It is this procedure when CHOSEN because they are past optimal stage for a vacuum extraction or saline abortion, and for no other reason than to get rid of the child (an elective abortion, if you will), THIS is wrong and should be outlawed.

From the same site, some very even-handed observations as to why these procedures must be done:

I actually visited that site in my research for the original post (above), but rejected it because I wanted to cite information showing the other side. I'm not going to waste time saying with an absolute certainty this procedure is unnecessary (I'm not a doctor, and this could be a needed procedure in an emergency case), however, you cannot say with any certainty (specifically in light of information I provided) that this procedure isn't being horribly abused, chosen because it provides an easy solution to a difficult problem (late term elective abortions).

I believe if you examine Religious Tolerance's information about our discussion, you'll find a pretty good representation of my view on "partial-birth abortion", standard vs. intact D & X, & C-section operations.

Following the information you cited:

"She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester."

Being "not ready to have a baby for whatever reason" is NOT a good reason for an abortion, let alone a partial birth abortion because she didn't seek one in an earlier stage. The child has a heart beat, brain waves, etc. This is not a "simple" abortion, this is killing a child.

"There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy."

This is VERY vague reasoning. Anyone can claim anything, and if it helps them "justify" the decision, and if it helps the doctor make another $350-$500 bucks, so what? Just as I stipulated to a small number of PBA's occuring (relatively speaking), you must also own up to the fact that this vague reasoning could be the case in justifying a number of theem being performed. Truly, if it's not an emergency situation, there is no reason for a PBA. Waiting too long to obtain one is not a good enough reason; faking and/or stretching the truth to obtain one is not a good enough reason either.

"3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger."

I've never read about a single case of this being true (not saying they aren't out there, but I've never seen one). Can you provide info for what kind of "severe danger to the woman's life" might necessitate this procedure? (Aside from the information posted here for the other cases).

"The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her."

Same as the previous one, have any cases you can cite?

"In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed."

I don't believe we should sentence the child to die because the mother is depressed or suicidal. There's more going on here if that is the case, and she needs to be hospitalized and assisted. There's very real probability if she is depressed and suicidal while pregnant, she'll find herself in the self-same condition post-abortion. Post-Abortion Syndrome is a real thing too (I know, I have personal experience with this one).

"There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons."

Seems to me we ought to at LEAST be monitoring these abortion facilities, and keeping records of these abortions. Information can only help in a case like this (and only hurt that of abortion proponents, I'm afraid).

I still want to focus more on birth control education & girl's attitudes about their responsibilities when they start having sex.
Regards,
MHB

Understood, but the abortion issue is a hot-button one for me (it's deeply personal). I'm afraid I just could not let your information stand without response. Also, I belive this is a GREAT place to start on a path to compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life ideological camps. This procedure needs to be outlawed.

Blessings,
Hms

DoctorDoom

03-08-2006, 11:42 PM

It's been my experience, as I could document, that on this issue it's your side who wouldn't give even the slightest concession in the interests of sanity and sound policy.Bullshit! The issue is partial birth abortion, not birth control or other irrelevant topics. And on PBA, my "side" is absolutely inflexible, because it is impossible to justify under any condition.

They're one step removed from demanding that people be charged with mass murder for masturbating.Your grasp of the art of satire/sarcasm is minimal.

DoctorDoom

03-08-2006, 11:56 PM

Defend this, pro-abs:

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/PBA.gif" /></center>

ooh_child

03-09-2006, 04:25 PM

Hey, ooh!

Okay, I'll stipulate to your numbers (hypothetically for this discussion). I also agree regarding avoiding more abortions by implementing better solutions. As for your third point, I would say the actual truth probably lies somewhere between my point and yours. I purposefully avoided using links which might be viewed as having a right leaning bent, and went straight for the actually citations where I could. So if we take into consideration the information I provided, and that which you've provided, would you agree it is safe to assume that:

SOME partial-birth abortions are not really necessary in regards to issues of life and health of the mother, thus are performed because they are easier for the doctor to perform,
and
SOME partial-birth abortions are justified (especially where the fetus has died in utero)
?

Yes, that sounds fair.

Sure, be glad to tell you why. Because babies are being killed for no reason, and because this procedure is so horrendous.

In the scenario of a needed procedure (the pba) When an emergency occurs, doctors will do what they have to do to save the life of their patients and all they can do in the best interests of mother and child. I don't think anyone is contesting this, and in fact they (abortions) were probably taking place in various forms even when abortion was illegal, but it wasn't something that became common, publicized and chosen (as a method of birth control).

What I'm concerned about is the protestations over this procedure on behalf of abortion as an issue. PBA's ARE being performed when they aren't necessary or warranted, THOSE should be stopped, THOSE should offend everyone in both camps.

Yep, your right.

THOSE should be the reason this procedure should be outlawed. Again, let me reiterate, when an emergency necessitates extreme action, doctors WILL take action on behalf of their patients, and I don't think ANYONE would object to this (it would most likely be between a doctor and his patient/their family, and never brought to light of public knowledge). It is this procedure when CHOSEN because they are past optimal stage for a vacuum extraction or saline abortion, and for no other reason than to get rid of the child (an elective abortion, if you will), THIS is wrong and should be outlawed.

On that, I have to side with Planned Parenthood on that one. I know, you have a visceral hate for that organization, but this is one we'll have to "agree to disagree" on.

"Referring to a Virginia state law, Bennet Greenberg, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia said: "I'm not aware of a need for this bill in the first place, since this procedure is very, very rare, and I'm not aware it's ever been used [in Virginia]."

I actually visited that site in my research for the original post (above), but rejected it because I wanted to cite information showing the other side. I'm not going to waste time saying with an absolute certainty this procedure is unnecessary (I'm not a doctor, and this could be a needed procedure in an emergency case), however, you cannot say with any certainty (specifically in light of information I provided) that this procedure isn't being horribly abused, chosen because it provides an easy solution to a difficult problem (late term elective abortions).

Following the information you cited:

"She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester."

Being "not ready to have a baby for whatever reason" is NOT a good reason for an abortion, let alone a partial birth abortion because she didn't seek one in an earlier stage. The child has a heart beat, brain waves, etc. This is not a "simple" abortion, this is killing a child.

"There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy."

This is VERY vague reasoning. Anyone can claim anything, and if it helps them "justify" the decision, and if it helps the doctor make another $350-$500 bucks, so what? Just as I stipulated to a small number of PBA's occuring (relatively speaking), you must also own up to the fact that this vague reasoning could be the case in justifying a number of theem being performed. Truly, if it's not an emergency situation, there is no reason for a PBA. Waiting too long to obtain one is not a good enough reason; faking and/or stretching the truth to obtain one is not a good enough reason either.

I have to disagree, because the abortions you are referring to are still legal, gestation-period wise, according to Roe V Wade. I'd rather leave these situations to the doctor & patient, and not involve the government in a woman's private issues.

"3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger."

I've never read about a single case of this being true (not saying they aren't out there, but I've never seen one). Can you provide info for what kind of "severe danger to the woman's life" might necessitate this procedure? (Aside from the information posted here for the other cases).

"The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her."

Same as the previous one, have any cases you can cite?

"In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed."

I don't believe we should sentence the child to die because the mother is depressed or suicidal. There's more going on here if that is the case, and she needs to be hospitalized and assisted. There's very real probability if she is depressed and suicidal while pregnant, she'll find herself in the self-same condition post-abortion. Post-Abortion Syndrome is a real thing too (I know, I have personal experience with this one).

"There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons."

Seems to me we ought to at LEAST be monitoring these abortion facilities, and keeping records of these abortions. Information can only help in a case like this (and only hurt that of abortion proponents, I'm afraid).

These questions about specific cases are available, I'm sure, through Religious Tolerance's website. They have a specific area for folks like you who need more info, or have corrected info to submit. You might go there & ask them. I agree more monitoring is needed.

Understood, but the abortion issue is a hot-button one for me (it's deeply personal). I'm afraid I just could not let your information stand without response. Also, I belive this is a GREAT place to start on a path to compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life ideological camps. This procedure needs to be outlawed.

Blessings,
Hms

I have personal stories about abortions that affected my life, too. I'm trying to be as nonconfrontational with you as possible. I think we're doing pretty good. Ya think we might eventually solve this problem? :grin:

Regards,

MHB

PS-Sorry for the quote malfunctions, I'm not sure why my edits aren't holding.

ooh_child

03-09-2006, 05:15 PM

Wow.....that was mature! :rolleyes:

Just for that ridiculous display of childishness, I am going to stalk you from here on out and point out every typo and misspelling you make. Enjoy!

True Grace, you are free to do whatever you want. But Doc started it first with me, in response to my intro post. I was just needling him back!

:uhh:

MHB

DoctorDoom

03-09-2006, 08:00 PM

But Doc started it first with me, in response to my intro post. I was just needling him back!FSTDT quote-miners are not beloved here, and IAC I've been "needled" by far better.

While it may be difficult to determine how many PBA's are performed each year, the stats I have show a rate of approx. 4,000/year.That is 4000 too many, in view of the impossibility of medically justifying it. But let's compromise: complete the birth and then kill the baby on the table in precisely the same manner that s/he would have been executed just prior to the head emerging. That way there are no complications from the PBA, and the baby is still murdered because it's a "right".

That ought to make the abortion cheerleaders ecstatic.

nene

03-09-2006, 08:18 PM

It takes an act of self-delusion to believe that partial birth abortion is not murder of an infant.

Any person that performs this procedure is committing murder and should be prosecuted. The death penalty would be appropriate.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-09-2006, 08:54 PM

On that, I have to side with Planned Parenthood on that one. I know, you have a visceral hate for that organization, but this is one we'll have to "agree to disagree" on.

"Referring to a Virginia state law, Bennet Greenberg, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia said: "I'm not aware of a need for this bill in the first place, since this procedure is very, very rare, and I'm not aware it's ever been used [in Virginia]."
Okay you are siding with Planned Parenthood how? That partial birth abortion should remain legal?

I have to disagree, because the abortions you are referring to are still legal, gestation-period wise, according to Roe V Wade. I'd rather leave these situations to the doctor & patient, and not involve the government in a woman's private issues.

I think maybe you didn't understand what I was saying, or I misunderstood your agreement with me earlier regarding PBA's.

The abortions I am referring to are PBA's "supposedly" performed because she ... 1) is not ready to have a baby, and waited too long for a vacuum or saline abortion, or 2) has mental health problems related to having a baby, and waited too long for a vacuum or saline abortion. Those reasons are not acceptable justifications for a partial-birth abortion.

Do you believe they are?

Just to reiterate my position, I've not seen any valid reasons for PBA's other than if the baby was dead. I'm not speaking of any other abortion method right now, only PBA's.

These questions about specific cases are available, I'm sure, through Religious Tolerance's website. They have a specific area for folks like you who need more info, or have corrected info to submit. You might go there & ask them. I agree more monitoring is needed.

Very well then, I'll do some more research. It's just, I'm sure you can understand, I've often been told there are valid reasons for PBA's but when I've asked for proof of them, none have ever been forthcoming. In my own investigations on the issue I've never come across a reasonable, rational reason for them.

I have personal stories about abortions that affected my life, too. I'm trying to be as nonconfrontational with you as possible. I think we're doing pretty good.

I'm curious as to why you would say that you were trying to be nonconfrontational with me. Have I seemed confrontational? If so, I apologize, it was not my intent. Yes, I thought we were doing quite well all things considered.

Ya think we might eventually solve this problem? :grin:
Regards,
MHB

Probably not solve it, but we might get to an uncomfortable compromise. I say uncomfortable, I really can't speak for you, but for my part I will never be comfortable as long as abortion is legal. I would think, from what you've shared so far, you wouldn't be comfortable if abortion were illegal. I think we could come to a workable compromise, eventually, but I'm sure neither of us would be completely comfortable with it. Does that make sense?

Too bad we can't get the politicians and those with financial interests out of the equation, because if we could, I bet that compromise could be reached in reality as well, not just in a forum posting board.

PS-Sorry for the quote malfunctions, I'm not sure why my edits aren't holding.

No problem -- I'm the least computer critical, as I'm no techie whatsoever. Took me a while to get the hang of things too (and I'm still learning!)

ooh_child

03-10-2006, 12:22 AM

Homes, I'm not sure if you've ever heard of these women, but here's a link their testimony. They had valid reasons for their procedures, and the babies weren't dead, yet.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2046

"If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.
In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.
Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal."

There more women's stories in the article.

I support any type of medical procedure to abort a pregnancy, provided the pregnancy falls under acceptable timeframe as laid out in Roe V Wade.

So, if the reasons are:

"1) is not ready to have a baby, and waited too long for a vacuum or saline abortion, or 2) has mental health problems related to having a baby, and waited too long for a vacuum or saline abortion."

If the state law says that a woman can have an abortion at 18 weeks, then it's up to her & her doctor what's the best method to use. Unfortunately, this is where we have to disagree.

Well, I'm turning in for the night. Hope this covered what you were asking.

Regards,

MHB

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-11-2006, 09:36 PM

I really appreciate you providing this information, it's more than I've gotten when discussing this with others.

Homes, I'm not sure if you've ever heard of these women, but here's a link their testimony. They had valid reasons for their procedures, and the babies weren't dead, yet.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2046

"If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.
In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.
Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal."

I have to say reading the above exerpt, there was still no explanation of how this put HER life at stake. I also don't see how delivering this baby all except for the head, then vacuum suctioning the brains of this child served to lessen the suffering for the child.

I did a bit of further digging regarding Trisomy 13, and found:

The Support Organization for Trisomy 18, 13, and other Related Disorders - Home (http://www.trisomy.org/info/Default.htm)

It is important to recall that about 5-10% of children with these syndromes do survive the first year of life, thus, the condition is not universally lethal as sometimes presented by health professionals.
While the developmental disability in children with trisomy 18 and 13 is significant, it is important to recognize that children do advance to some degree in their milestones. They can interact with their families, smile and acquire some skills, such as rolling over, self-feeding, etc. if they survive infancy.I'm certainly not going to presume her child's medical condition regarding this affliction, however, from what I have read, I still don't see how this is a condition warrants the murder of her LIVING child, and certainly not by method of partial-birth abortion.

There more women's stories in the article.

I read them -

From the article:
"So did Viki Wilson of Fresno, Calif., who had a late-term abortion because the brain of the fetus she was carrying had developed outside the skull. So did Vikki Stella of Naperville, Ill., whose fetus had dwarfism, no brain tissue and seven other major abnormalities.

All three women told legislators they owed their health to late-term abortions and that a continuation of their doomed pregnancies posed grave health risks such as stroke, paralysis, infertility or even death."

I cannot understand how either of those women's conditions posed grave health risks to THEM. But, for argument's sake, I will stipulate to them -- again, this falls under my previous agreement to emergency situations. A doctor will do what needs to be done in the best interest's of his patient in cases such as these. It won't be televised, there's medical confidentiality, and no one other than the medical professionals and family will know.

This has no bearing on a push to make and keep a specific type of abortion legal. The partial-birth abortion IS being used for OTHER THAN emergency circumstances. In THOSE cases, this procedure should be outlawed. Just because a woman waits too long to seek an abortion, and this particular procedure is "easier" for the doctor is no justification for the murder of the child.

If "life and health of mother" stipulations are LISTED in the ruling regarding this procedure, it in effect negates the whole thing. Doctors will accomadate their patients (like those who waited too long to seek an early abortion) by saying it is in the best interest of the patient's "health" (which is NOT the case) because it's in THEIR best interest - they get PAID to do so and they want to keep their patient.

I support any type of medical procedure to abort a pregnancy, provided the pregnancy falls under acceptable timeframe as laid out in Roe V Wade.

So, if the reasons are:

"1) is not ready to have a baby, and waited too long for a vacuum or saline abortion, or 2) has mental health problems related to having a baby, and waited too long for a vacuum or saline abortion."

If the state law says that a woman can have an abortion at 18 weeks, then it's up to her & her doctor what's the best method to use. Unfortunately, this is where we have to disagree.

I see us quickly approaching a point where compromise is unattainable, then. Certainly, if we cannot even agree that PBA's are NOT an acceptable option,* I don't see how we can reach agreement in any other respect.

Unless absolutely positively medically necessary* -- such as emergency situations, or like ectopic pregnancy -- abortion is murder. Partial-birth abortion ELECTIVELY CHOSEN because a woman waited too long to seek an early abortion, is even more so -- the heart is beating, the brain waves detectable. Most of these babies are at a stage where we are NOW saving premies.

Life should never be based upon whether the child is wanted or planned. There are plenty of us out here who were neither -- should our lives have been negated because of it?

Well, I'm turning in for the night. Hope this covered what you were asking.
Regards,
MHB

Yes, answered quite a bit for me, thank you.

brilliantLiberal

03-11-2006, 10:24 PM

Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal."
Answer me this.

This baby was eight months old. An eight month old can live in an incubator. Why not simply remove the child? Perhaps tests could be done that would enable other babies to live? Maybe even that one? Can you or anyone provide one reason, just one, why taking the baby dead rather than alive had any effect whatever on the health of the mother?

DoctorDoom

03-12-2006, 08:25 AM

BL, we're in sync there. I know of no case in medical history where dilation of the vaginal opening to pass the head of a baby posed a critical medical danger to the woman. It's just rationalization designed to prevent any limitation whatever on the "right" to murder a baby.

And yes, "ooh_child", it's brutal (except to soulless, amoral savages).

ooh_child

03-12-2006, 01:38 PM

DoctorDoom

03-12-2006, 02:16 PM

You're citing those bastards at PP on the need for partial-birth abortion? Scratch your last vestige of credibility, child. There is NO credible excuse for PBA. NOT ONE.

... (J)udges in Lincoln, New York and San Francisco agreed to hear evidence in three simultaneous non-jury trials on whether the ban violates the Constitution.Violates the Constitution? There is no reference to abortion in the Constitution. RvW required inventing non-existent "rights", but then liberals are notorious for that.

Shadigian acknowledged that collapsing the skull might be necessary during D&Es in some cases ...What a lying sack of shit! The "procedure" of D&E involves "collapsing the skull" in EVERY case unless the baby happens to be fully born before the thug gets the chance to puncture his/her skull and suck the living brain out. In that case the baby is just shoved off to one side and left to die unattended.

And that's a "right".

... such as when the woman is hemorrhaging.And WHY is she hemorrhaging, "Doctor"? Could it be that the soulless, baby-killing barbarian who is preparing to murder her child f**ked up while dragging his/her little body out of the womb, and ripped some tissue?

Subhuman vermin like "Dr." Shadigian offer strong support for retroactive abortion.

Maggie_T

03-12-2006, 04:34 PM

You're citing those bastards at PP on the need for partial-birth abortion? Scratch your last vestige of credibility, child. There is NO credible excuse for PBA. NOT ONE.

Absolutely. It's plain butchery and no mistake.

But of course, that never stopped the pro-infant-murder crowd from trying to excuse this brutal procedure in any possible way. Said crowd will excuse anything as long as it goes against their perceived "rights" (to whit: mommy being inconvenienced by a baby as a result of her incapability to keep her knees together).

ooh_child

03-12-2006, 07:10 PM

Folks, please calm down & read what I posted. Dr. Elizabeth Shadigian testified for the government, which means she was there to support the ban.

Let me say that again, Dr. Shadigian testified on behalf of the government, and even she disagrees with you!

Look at the article, which is printed by permission of AP. I'm sooo sorry I used a PP link to the article, but the information has yet to be refuted as coming from a government sponsored witness.

Don's shoot the messenger just because you won't hear the message!

MHB

DoctorDoom

03-12-2006, 08:49 PM

Shadigian's offering an excuse for PBA, and PP's using her testimony as evidence, tells me what I need to know. PP is in business to kill the preborn for profit. It's the largest abortion "provider" in the country. And any limitations on abortion threaten its bottom line.

The concept that people actually march in the streets to defend the "right" to commit wholesale slaughter of babies in the womb (or in this case, babies completely born except for their heads) is a damning commentary on how far American culture has fallen. And photos like these define those bastards.

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/IMG_4527.jpg" />

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/IMG_4411.jpg" />

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/IMG_4443.jpg" /></center>

I am unable to fathom why any sane male would want to get close to these ugly skanks, let alone do the naked nasties with them. However, they are representative of the subhuman species that screeches in defense of the wanton, cold-blooded murder of the most innocent of people.

This is a photographic record of the "Walk for Life West Coast" march and counter-protest that happened in San Francisco on Saturday, January 21, 2006. The theme of the day was abortion, or the lack thereof. Because this is a very sensitive issue to many people, I will keep the editorializing to a minimum and for the most part let the photos speak for themselves. I will also refer to each side in the debate by its own chosen appellation: those who favor abortion will be called "pro-choice" and those who don't favor abortion will be called "pro-life."

The page is not meant to be an argument for one side or the other, nor does it analyze the merits of either position. It is simply an essay about what happened that day, and what people did.

Even before the march began, trouble was brewing. While the Walk for Life organizers set strict guidelines for behavior to keep the march peaceful, the pro-choice crowd actively encouraged wildcat actions to disrupt the planned event at any cost (as the calendar listing said, "Autonomous direct actions to shut down the march are also encouraged").The "Walk for Life" March and Counter-Demonstration (http://www.zombietime.com/walk_for_life/)

Welcome to freedom of speech, liberal-style. America would be well-served if someone reduced that reeking urban cesspool to a glowing crater. Hell will not want for new faces.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-12-2006, 09:56 PM

Hi, Homes!

In your last post you stated, "I have to say reading the above exerpt, there was still no explanation of how this put HER life at stake."

I can't answer that, only she & her doctor can. I would prefer to not get the government involved in these types of medical decisions.

Hello ooh

Yes, it would be much easier that way, not getting the government involved. But the idea is to get at the truth, is it not? To truly DO the right thing. It would be in the best interest of all parties if the truth were known ... women's lives would be saved, babies' lives would be saved, and no unwarranted actions taken -- isn't that the ultimate goal?

But in general, it is acknowledged that sometimes this is a medically necessary procedure for the preservation of the woman's life.

And I beileve I stipulated to those, did I not?

quote:
But, for argument's sake, I will stipulate to them -- again, this falls under my previous agreement to emergency situations. A doctor will do what needs to be done in the best interest's of his patient in cases such as these. It won't be televised, there's medical confidentiality, and no one other than the medical professionals and family will know.

So, my desire at this point, is to eliminate CONVENIENCE PBA's -- those done simply because the woman waited too long to seek an early (i.e. easy) abortion. These abortions serve no other purpose than to deny existence to a life that already does. Can you not agree with this? Or do you believe the (supposed) right of the woman to abort at will, right up to birth?

As for the rest of your post, I see we do have little to agree about. :unsmile:

Apparently not, as it seems you aren't even willing to compromise on the most heinous of abortion procedures http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/shake.gif .

No fetus is viable in the situation I mentioned, 18 weeks, so any procedure that the doctor & woman agree is best to perform is okay with me. It's none of my business, IMO.

Is it our business when parents starve their children to death? How about if they keep them holed up in a room with no light for the majority of their early development? Why don't we allow these things to occur, why do we make the best interests of the child "our business"? Shouldn't we, as a civilized society stand up for the rights of the weak, speak up for the voiceless, and champion the cause of the threatened?

Perhaps the right question is, when does the preborn become human life? By what measure do we deem it worthy of existence?

"At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it (the heart) is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother." J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

"Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception." J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

"Episodic spontaneous breathing movement have been observed in the healthy human fetus as early as ten weeks gestational age." Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April ‘89, p. 932

"Fingernails are present by 11 to 12 weeks; eyelashes by 16 weeks. Fingerprints are completely established during the fourth month of gestation." Hamilton et al., Human Embryology, Fourth Ed., 1972, p. 567

"Auditory sense is present in the infant 24 weeks before birth [14 weeks after conception]. This involves brain functioning and memory patterns." M. Clemens, "5th International Congress Psychosomatic," OB & GYN, Rome: Medical Tribune, Mar. 22, 1978, p. 7

Fetology (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fetology.htm)

Pardon me but, I simply cannot NOT make this my business.

BTW, a lot of medical procedures make me squeamish & uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean I think they should be banned in the US Constitution, either.

I would earnestly like to know what medical procedure can compare with this atrocity, please? "Squeamish" is certainly not an applicable or appropriate description of my feelings, or that of the large majority of people who find out exactly what this procedure consists of.

The right to abort is not in the United States Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling was based on a penumbra, i.e. it didn't exist and so was nuanced for an interpretation.

So I'm left wondering, just what type of (uncomfortable) compromise would you be willing to accept? I'm now suspecting, none would be possible, and so the atmosphere of possible compromise was actually a ruse, or farce, or both.

brilliantLiberal

03-13-2006, 09:25 AM

The right to abort is not in the United States Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling was based on a penumbra, i.e. it didn't exist and so was nuanced for an interpretation.
The SCOTUS decision was based on a presumed right to privacy, which is not among the rights detailed in the Bill of rights, but the Bill of Rights was never meant to be inclusive and only listed a few specific rights. However, being that authority was never specifically given to the federal government and the powers of the federal government WERE specifically limited, the SCOTUS never had jurisdiction. It has been demonstrated that the circumstances under which Roe V Wade were brought to the court were manipulated and fraudulant.

So I'm left wondering, just what type of (uncomfortable) compromise would you be willing to accept? I'm now suspecting, none would be possible, and so the atmosphere of possible compromise was actually a ruse, or farce, or both.
Compromise? This coming from the person who inferred that embryos in a petry dish was human life with the same rights as a full term baby? Perhaps we are making some headway.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-13-2006, 09:34 AM

Compromise? This coming from the person who inferred that embryos in a petry dish was human life with the same rights as a full term baby? Perhaps we are making some headway.

:uhh: I wasn't talking to, or with, you. "We" won't ever make headway, which is why if you haven't noticed, I no longer discuss this issue with you.

brilliantLiberal

03-13-2006, 11:19 AM

I wasn't talking to, or with, you. "We" won't ever make headway, which is why if you haven't noticed, I no longer discuss this issue with you.
So your talk of compromise is disengenuous. You expect others to compromise their beliefs while you don't temper your extremities at all. No, nobody will make headway under those conditions, and the status quo will remain the status quo.

ooh_child

03-13-2006, 06:33 PM

Hello Homes. I'm going to try to take this down a notch, since I get the sense you've about given up on me. Let me try to refocus a bit.

My opening post explained my full support of Roe V Wade, so I hoped you would remember that when you split this off to discuss one procedure, PBA, as you define it. Just to be clear: if the gestation of the fetus is short of viability, it's very rarely performed & a decision left to the woman. If I was unclear, I apologize.

Now, as to this part of your post:

"The right to abort is not in the United States Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling was based on a penumbra, i.e. it didn't exist and so was nuanced for an interpretation."

My reference to the Constitution was because I assumed you'd be in favor of a constitutional ban on abortion. If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize.

"So I'm left wondering, just what type of (uncomfortable) compromise would you be willing to accept? I'm now suspecting, none would be possible, and so the atmosphere of possible compromise was actually a ruse, or farce, or both."

I would accept a ban on late-term PBA, if I could be shown a case where a woman decided she didn't want to carry to term a healthy viable baby. I have only seen testimony of women who wanted a healthy pregnancy, but due to medical reasons had to opt for an intact D & X.

Even the government's own witness acknowledged that collapsing the skull might be necessary during D&Es (which aren't covered under the ban) in some cases, such as when the woman is hemorrhaging.

I have come over to this thread at your invitation, and I think I've been totally honest with you about PBA's. It's not been a ruse or a farce, and I'm a little disappointed you'd think that about me. Oh well.

Regards,

MHB

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-13-2006, 07:42 PM

So your talk of compromise is disengenuous. You expect others to compromise their beliefs while you don't temper your extremities at all. No, nobody will make headway under those conditions, and the status quo will remain the status quo.

I really don't care what your assessment of my posts consists of. You accuse me of anecdotal evidence, conjecture and heresay, yet I PROVE you are providing nothing but anecdotal evidence, conjecture, and heresay, and you refuse to acknowledge your deception. You and I have nothing to discuss.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-13-2006, 08:24 PM

Hello Homes. I'm going to try to take this down a notch, since I get the sense you've about given up on me. Let me try to refocus a bit.

Fair enough.

My opening post explained my full support of Roe V Wade, so I hoped you would remember that when you split this off to discuss one procedure, PBA, as you define it. Just to be clear: if the gestation of the fetus is short of viability, it's very rarely performed & a decision left to the woman. If I was unclear, I apologize.

Well I guess that might be where our problem lies ... I do not believe that this procedure is being performed JUST in cases where it is medically necessary. I believe they are occurring when the babies are healthy and normal, but the mother waited too long to seek an early (easy) abortion. I believe they are being "justified" by the "heath and life of the mother" clause, and are unwarranted as such.

Now, as to this part of your post:

"The right to abort is not in the United States Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling was based ona penumbra, i.e. it didn't exist and so was nuanced for an interpretation."

My reference to the Constitution was because I assumed you'd be in favor of a constitutional ban on abortion. If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize.

No, no apology is necessary, I would be in favor of a constitutional ban on abortion. My support of such is rooted in the existing laws against murder and the established "right to life" in the Declaration of Independence.

I would accept a ban on late-term PBA, if I could be shown a case where a woman decided she didn't want to carry to term a healthy viable baby. I have only seen testimony of women who wanted a healthy pregnancy, but due to medical reasons had to opt for an intact D & X.

Even the government's own witness acknowledged that collapsing the skull might be necessary during D&Es (which aren't covered under the ban) in some cases, such as when the woman is hemorrhaging.

Sounds like we are getting close to agreement here ... I did provide statements from doctors who have asserted this procedure is being used in more than just extreme cases. So if we could get a restriction on PBA's for extreme circumstances only (as we have discussed and outlined), would you and I have reached that uncomfortable compromise, at least on this particular aspect of the issue (of abortion)?

I have come over to this thread at your invitation, and I think I've been totally honest with you about PBA's. It's not been a ruse or a farce, and I'm a little disappointed you'd think that about me. Oh well.

Yes, and I owe you an apology, as I seem to have completely misread your posts. I'm sorry.

ooh_child

03-15-2006, 06:31 PM

No, no apology is necessary, I would be in favor of a constitutional ban on abortion. My support of such is rooted in the existing laws against murder and the established "right to life" in the Declaration of Independence.

Ah, okay then. That was why referenced the "squeamish" factor. I found the following operation to be very distasteful & unnerving, to say the least:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205

Now please tell me how the operation to seperate the second head is any different than a late-term PBA. Why shouldn't they have left this little one alone, and find out if the second brain had cognitive skills?

Sounds like we are getting close to agreement here ... I did provide statements from doctors who have asserted this procedure is being used in more than just extreme cases. So if we could get a restriction on PBA's for extreme circumstances only (as we have discussed and outlined), would you and I have reached that uncomfortable compromise, at least on this particular aspect of the issue (of abortion)?

As long as we are talking about protecting healthy, viable pregnancies which are past second trimester development, sure. But those cases are so very, very rare. I'd rather reduce the number of first trimester abortions (90% of all abortions) through education, than focus my attention on this issue or changing the Constitution.

Yes, and I owe you an apology, as I seem to have completely misread your posts. I'm sorry.

It's understandable, to be sure. It's all good!

Regards,

MHB

DoctorDoom

03-15-2006, 07:11 PM

Ah, okay then. That was why referenced the "squeamish" factor. I found the following operation to be very distasteful & unnerving, to say the least:

...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205Your pathetic, immature attempt at sarcasm is duly noted.

Now please tell me how the operation to seperate the second head is any different than a late-term PBA.If you are so bloody stupid that you can ask that question seriously, then you wouldn't understand any response with words of more than four letters. IAC, idiot, kindly tell us how a PBA, the express purpose of which is to KILL a normal baby, is in any way related to an operation that saves the life of an abnormal baby.

We're waiting ... <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/waiting.gif" />

Why shouldn't they have left this little one alone, and find out if the second brain had cognitive skills?Why not admit that your anal questions serve no other purpose than to evoke responses that you can copy and paste at the "fundy" site so that you and your fellow recta with legs can giggle about them. :rolleyes:

Twit.

ooh_child

03-17-2006, 03:56 PM

I assure you I'm quite serious with my question, whatever you may think Doc.

I'd appreciate anyone who could explain the difference.

No hourglass is required.

MHB

Melz

03-17-2006, 04:25 PM

One procedure kills a child and the other saves one. You need that difference EXPLAINED?? I am not sure I understand what your question is, as the answer to the one you asked seems so obvious.

ooh_child

03-18-2006, 12:45 PM

One procedure kills a child and the other saves one. You need that difference EXPLAINED?? I am not sure I understand what your question is, as the answer to the one you asked seems so obvious.
Okay, I see someone didn't read the linked article. This procedure was performed a few months earlier, and that child didn't survive. Also, nowhere does it say that this situation was life threatening to the surviving girl.

In addition, there is a documented case where the child did survive without this operation.

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/186_bengalboy2.shtml

The only one capable of prolonged extra-uterine life was the famous Two-Headed Boy of Bengal, born in 1783. Just like the recent Dominican Republic case, this boy had a parasitic head on top of his skull. This parasitic head was reasonably well developed and showed clear signs of independent life.

So, let's see how this is different than a PBA. Melz? Bueller? Anyone?

MHB

Melz

03-18-2006, 07:28 PM

Okay, I see someone didn't read the linked article. This procedure was performed a few months earlier, and that child didn't survive. Also, nowhere does it say that this situation was life threatening to the surviving girl.

In addition, there is a documented case where the child did survive without this operation.

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/186_bengalboy2.shtml

The only one capable of prolonged extra-uterine life was the famous Two-Headed Boy of Bengal, born in 1783. Just like the recent Dominican Republic case, this boy had a parasitic head on top of his skull. This parasitic head was reasonably well developed and showed clear signs of independent life.

So, let's see how this is different than a PBA. Melz? Bueller? Anyone?

MHB

Doing the procedure to any child (baby, fetus, whatever YOU call life) is safer than abortion, which is definite murder.

Nice hate/sarcasm there fstdt person, I was actually confused that you didn't understand the difference between a medical procedure and murder of a baby. I still don't understand, but I certainly see that you are hiding under a facade to some here.

ooh_child

03-19-2006, 02:59 PM

*blah blah blah* I still don't understand, *blah*
Neither do I.

What's the difference again? Both are medical procedures; one (so-called PBA) you'd like to do away with legally. Why do you legally support the other, which is not medically necessary?

MHB

DoctorDoom

03-19-2006, 07:57 PM

What's the difference again?No one can be as unfathomably stupid as you are making yourself out to be and still have the brain capacity to walk and breathe simultaneously. You are therefore trolling for quotes, plain and simple.

For the readers and lurkers, I'll address your anal question. You are not at FC to debate and therefore will not be further addressed directly here.

Both are medical procedures ...Applying the euphemism "medical procedure" to abortion is tantamount to applying the term "weight reduction" to decapitation.

Questions for the readers:

• What other "medical procedure" can you think of that has as its sole purpose the brutal taking of a human life?
• What other "medical procedure" is in the vast majority of cases performed on a person with no medical problems whatever?
• Examine the "medical procedure" depicted in panels 4 and 5 of the graphic in post #10. What would this be called if it were done to a baby thirty seconds after the delivery was completed?

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/PBA4-5.gif" /></center>

• If your answer to the above is "cold-blooded murder", why is it called a "right" as long as the baby's head is not delivered?
• What sort of despicable, soulless monster does it take to defend this hellish atrocity?

... one (so-called PBA) you'd like to do away with legally. Why do you legally support the other, which is not medically necessary?The question from the troll is irrefutable evidence that its intention is not to discuss or debate. The troll is equating emergency surgery to save the life of an abnormal child with the murder of a perfectly normal child for the sake of "convenience".

The troll is posting at FC to provoke reactions that can be posted on another board so that it and other liberal idiots can mock them. As such, the troll deserves only contempt and rejection.

Nutrider99

03-20-2006, 11:09 AM

<CENTER>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/PBA4-5.gif</CENTER>

Why not just give a good jank, pop the little tyke out of there and bash his brains out on the countertop before he can take a breath? What's the difference? It might be quicker and more painless than poking a hole in his skull and sucking his brains out. The kid will be just as dead, the "doctor" can relieve some stress by smacking the life out of the newborn, and the "mother" will never have to buy pampers. Hey, dead is dead, right?

Better yet, pull the kid out and toss it out an open window. If someone catches it, let them keep it. If it ends up splattered on the sidewalk, at least people will know what kind of "medical procedures" are being done.

Can anyone show me in the US Constitution where anyone has the right to hire a professional killer to perform an execution of an innocent party without due process? Any legal scholars here? This is not the mother making a choice, this is a PAID MURDERER performing an act of murder on an infant that, but for a few inches of tainted and undesirable flesh, would be a living breathing baby with Constitutional rights. Mother's choice be damned. This is a contract killing. This is no more a medical procedure than hiring an assassin to knock off her husband for the insurance money.

DoctorDoom

03-20-2006, 11:47 AM

Just so, brother NR. Well said.

routerider

03-20-2006, 11:50 AM

Good Lord that is sick!

DoctorDoom

03-20-2006, 01:24 PM

Is it really? How much sicker is it than the "medical procedure" described in panels 4 & 5? Would it be "sick" to fully deliver the baby and then immediately perform that exact "procedure"? It is after all the same baby that it's a "right" to murder before the head is delivered.

Nutrider99

03-20-2006, 01:57 PM

Good Lord that is sick!
What's sick is the cold blooded murder for hire of 3,500 babies per day. The manner of homicide is just an incidental detail. Would you rather have your head chopped off or be dissolved in a saline solution? Maybe we should have baby size Guillotines so we could lop off their little heads. Wouldn't that be better and less painless than shoving a pair of scissors through their skulls or dissolving them alive like a dissident during the Hussein regime?

Abortion is sick. Abortion is gross. No matter how you decorate it, it's still the massacre of the defenseless unborn. It's not a choice. It's a killing.

routerider

03-20-2006, 06:49 PM

Okay I really can't stomach reading the abortion prodecure drawings. How any doctor can reach into a womans womb and destroy a baby is beyond me. It turns my stomach just reading the steps of the abortion.

Now what really puzzles me....is how any of these woman got pregnant in the first place...I mean, who did they rape?! And are these men being treated for night terrors?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/IMG_4411.jpg

ooh_child

03-21-2006, 06:30 PM

Okay Doc, you said:

The question from the troll is irrefutable evidence that its intention is not to discuss or debate. The troll is equating emergency surgery to save the life of an abnormal child with the murder of a perfectly normal child for the sake of "convenience".
Please take out your reading glasses and look at the article. Nowhere does it say this is an "emergency surgery", and others have lived with this condition. Obviously, you have constructed a nice little strawman to make a show for your toadies here, but you haven't shown any difference yet.

The troll is posting at FC to provoke reactions that can be posted on another board so that it and other liberal idiots can mock them. As such, the troll deserves only contempt and rejection.
Wrong again, Doomy. BTW, haven't seen you over there lately. Slipping a bit, aren't you?

MHB

DoctorDoom

03-21-2006, 08:18 PM

Please take out your reading glasses and look at the article. Nowhere does it say this is an "emergency surgery", and others have lived with this condition. Obviously, you have constructed a nice little strawman to make a show for your toadies here, but you haven't shown any difference yet.People with IQs higher than their shoe size don't need to have the difference explained, asstroll. And liberal twits like you would need a brain upgrade to achieve an IQ even that high.

Wrong again, Doomy. BTW, haven't seen you over there lately. Slipping a bit, aren't you?Not really, child. It's just that I use words of more than one syllable, and the turds that float in that sewer are weary of looking for someone to explain them.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/LiberalPOV.jpg" />

ooh_child

03-31-2006, 06:17 PM

Well, the little Egyptian girl has died. An infection caused by the surgery killed her. Anyone want to claim the surgery was still necessary?

C'mon, folks, think about it. How can you support this surgery, and still claim it's different than PBA?

MHB

DoctorDoom

03-31-2006, 07:51 PM

Did they INTEND for the girl to die? Was the sole purpose of the surgery to kill the child because it was a "right"? Go away, troll. You don't have a clue.

Beowulf

03-31-2006, 08:29 PM

Beowulf

03-31-2006, 08:33 PM

This whole thread is like a debate I'm having over at www.fstdt.com (http://www.fstdt.com)
They see the conceived child as nothing more than a "mass of living tissues that has no brain and feels no pain. They accuse me of being a strawman speaking on emotion. Morality is questioned on the matter. I even posted a picture of an 8 week old fetus that showed a brain and other organs, which also spoke of a heartbeat.

Amazing how people de-value life.

DoctorDoom

03-31-2006, 09:30 PM

This whole thread is like a debate I'm having over at www.fstdt.com
They see the conceived child as nothing more than a "mass of living tissues that has no brain and feels no pain. They accuse me of being a strawman speaking on emotion. Morality is questioned on the matter. I even posted a picture of an 8 week old fetus that showed a brain and other organs, which also spoke of a heartbeat.

Amazing how people de-value life.In view of the nature of the critters that are regulars there, one cannot expect human responses.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-31-2006, 10:34 PM

Ah, okay then. That was why referenced the "squeamish" factor.

Well, ah, okay then. :thumb:

I found the following operation to be very distasteful & unnerving, to say the least: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205

This is known as a "red-herring," and is a separate issue having no relevance to the topic at hand. Denying one (procedure) doesn't allow the other (procedure) to exist. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Now please tell me how the operation to seperate the second head is any different than a late-term PBA.

They are completely different procedures aiming for a completely different goal. One's aim is to kill a baby, the other is to save a baby's life. Whether or not it was the right medical decision (to separate the second head) is not one that had any affect on the health and safety of the mother.

Why shouldn't they have left this little one alone, and find out if the second brain had cognitive skills?

Have to tell you, I'm not seeing too many people electively trying to remove second heads from their babies. There ARE women out there choosing electively to kill a child that is developed to the point of viability in utero via partial birth abortion. Those should be stopped, and a ban on all partial birth abortions would certainly come closer to accomplishing this.

As long as we are talking about protecting healthy, viable pregnancies which are past second trimester development, sure. But those cases are so very, very rare.

I disagree. I believe the numbers of pregnancies which are past the second trimester development and a danger to the life of the mother are the ones that are so very, very rare. I believe MORE elective PBA's are performed. Too bad the abortion industry doesn't bother to keep adequate records (because they can't afford to, as it would certainly harm their money-making business) so that a comparison of the numbers of elective PBA's vs. danger-to-the-mother's-life PBA's could be compiled.

I'd rather reduce the number of first trimester abortions (90% of all abortions)

If you were firm with that conviction, you would support the banning of all abortions, :smirky: . That is the only true way to reduce the number of (all) abortions.

...through education,

Education doesn't reduce the number of abortions, only increases them. When one is given the information they can "fix" the problem, instead of realizing it isn't a "problem" but another human life, they can't hardly make an informed choice. I been to the women's center, they do NOT "push" adoption (they barely skim over it) ... it's not in their best interest to do so (push adoption) because their money is made from the abortions. Abortion is big business .... if the numbers were reduced, their business would cease to be necessary, their services no longer required. They don't want to "educate" themselves out of a job.

than focus my attention on this issue or changing the Constitution.

Well, to be honest, it was those judges which "found" (which wasn't there) that "penumbra" (which didn't exist) of the "right to privacy" (also non-existent) which allowed for the usurping of the Founding Father's original intent of "right to life" which started this whole mess. This was really settled at the founding of this nation with the DoI. Now, it's merely a justification for an immoral, illegal, non-existent right to deny life.

ooh_child

04-03-2006, 06:17 PM

They are completely different procedures aiming for a completely different goal. One's aim is to kill a baby, the other is to save a baby's life. Whether or not it was the right medical decision (to separate the second head) is not one that had any affect on the health and safety of the mother.

The aim of both is the same, IMO. The PBA is performed (as you describe it) at the discretion of the mother. The removal of the parasitic head was also at the discretion of the parent(s). We have no idea if the girl would have survived with no surgery, and we do know that cases of survival have been recorded. Both are choices that have been made with no government intercession, to date. So, why does your following governmental question apply to women who medically need a D & X procedure, but not this case?

You said: "But the idea is to get at the truth, is it not? To truly DO the right thing. It would be in the best interest of all parties if the truth were known ... women's lives would be saved, babies' lives would be saved, and no unwarranted actions taken -- isn't that the ultimate goal?"

There ARE women out there choosing electively to kill a child that is developed to the point of viability in utero via partial birth abortion. Those should be stopped, and a ban on all partial birth abortions would certainly come closer to accomplishing this.

I have acknowledged this possibility, but I still haven't seen any evidence. On the other hand, I have shown you women who elected for this procedure because of fetal deformity or health concerns. And yet you would still want a governmental oversight for these decisions.

All of the information you posted concerned pre-26 week gestation, not gestation to the point of viability, as you state above.

Education doesn't reduce the number of abortions, only increases them.
I was referring to education to elimate unwanted pregnancies. No pregnancy, no abortion. It very easy in 2006 to prevent pregnancy, and I'd like to stress this first.

Well, to be honest, it was those judges which "found" (which wasn't there) that "penumbra" (which didn't exist) of the "right to privacy" (also non-existent) which allowed for the usurping of the Founding Father's original intent of "right to life" which started this whole mess. This was really settled at the founding of this nation with the DoI. Now, it's merely a justification for an immoral, illegal, non-existent right to deny life.
I don't think that the DoI has much legislative value in this debate. I doubt that the Founding Fathers considered pregnancy as a "right to life" issue, as they didn't see fit to include pregnancies in the first national census.

Regards,

MHB

Beowulf

04-03-2006, 07:18 PM

HomeschoolrsRUs

04-04-2006, 08:03 AM

The aim of both is the same, IMO. The PBA is performed (as you describe it) at the discretion of the mother.

To kill the baby.

The removal of the parasitic head was also at the discretion of the parent(s).

With the intent of saving the life of the child and provide a better quality of life for the child.

Big difference, imho.

We have no idea if the girl would have survived with no surgery, and we do know that cases of survival have been recorded.

No, we don't but the best possible outcome was sought for this child ... was it sought for the child that was aborted? Obviously not.

Both are choices that have been made with no government intercession, to date.

Wrong. The government interceded on behalf of the woman wanting to kill her baby in the guise of judicial fiat when it ruled abortion Constitutionally protected (which it is not). That poor baby's right (to life) was negated, and government intercession occured, back in 1973.

So, why does your following governmental question apply to women who medically need a D & X procedure, but not this case?

I've been pretty clear -- IF there is a MEDICAL need for a PBA, which are extremely rare (much more so than the elective PBA's), then I believe they WILL be performed in the best interests of medical necessity (even IF PBA's are outlawed).

We are speaking of the "elective" nature of procedures. The removal of the parasitic head was electively chosen as in the best interests of the child. An elective PBA effectively negates the best interests of the child, and in fact negates the very LIFE of the child. When push comes to shove, a medically necessary procedure will be performed (an no cameras will highlight it, no "Inside Edition" stories done about it, etc.) What needs to be done, will be done ... but to continue to allow a procedure legally that is being abused and used to kill human beings is not only offensive but murder by its very definition.

I have acknowledged this possibility, but I still haven't seen any evidence. On the other hand, I have shown you women who elected for this procedure because of fetal deformity or health concerns. And yet you would still want a governmental oversight for these decisions.

No, I want a law that makes Partion Birth Abortions illegal, period. As I stated above, IF it were medically necessary, I have no doubt it would be done. I have no doubt it probably would never be known about, but if it WERE (known about publicly), I also have no doubt the doctor, hospital, mother, etc. would NOT be held responsible or liable for "murder" because the child could not have been born healthy and/or the mother live, and their case would be ruled as such. This would also eliminate the desire to "fudge" the issue and push the envelope as to true medical necessity. If the threat of having to prove to a jury of peers the necessity of the procedure exists, it would certainly help prevent the procedure's abuse.

All of the information you posted concerned pre-26 week gestation, not gestation to the point of viability, as you state above.

Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, Father of the Partial Birth Abortion Technique (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r104:1:./temp/~r104apTJCo:e52231:)

(If the link times-out, it is a THOMAS Search Engine, use "Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell" for your search parameter.)

Q: A recent American Medical News article stated that the medical community hadn't really established a point of fetal viability. Why not?
A: Probably because it can't be established with uniform certainty. Biological systems are highly variable. The generally accepted* point of level viability is around 24-26 weeks. But you can't take a given point in fetal development and apply that 100 percent of the time. It just doesn't happen that way. If you look at premature deliveries and survival percentages at different weeks of gestation, you'll get 24-week fetuses with some survival rate. The fact that you get some survivors demonstrates the difficulty in defining a point.

"Generally accepted" doesn't negate the real possiblity they are wrong. The point of viability changes, and has changed, quite rapidly with the advances in technology. Should a person's life be negated just because we haven't reached the point of technological advancement to recognize their viability?

From the same link:

THIRD TRIMESTER

The author is aware of one other surgeon who uses a conceptually similar technique. He adds additional changes of Dilapan and/or lamineria in the 48 hour dilation period. Coupled with other refinements and a slower operating time, he performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more. 10

SUMMARY

In conclusion, Dilation and Extraction is an alternative method for achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 weeks. It can be used in the third trimester.

Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992(BY MARTIN HASKELL, M.D.) (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sfl/partial-birth_abortion.htm)

The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with a low rate of complications.

The author routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP. The author refers for induction patients falling into the following categories: previous C-section over 22 weeks; obese patients (more than 20 pounds over large frame ideal weight); twin pregnancy over 21 weeks; patients 26 weeks and over.

This information, coupled with that of additional links provided, shows this procedure is NOT limited to medical necessity.

Doctor defends late-term abortions cleveland.com: News (http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf?/news/pd/cc11abor.html)

"Haskell testified that 80 percent of women receiving abortions after 19 weeks of gestation at his clinics in Dayton, Cincinnati and Akron are healthy mothers with healthy pregnancies. That contradicted earlier statements by proponents of the procedure, who have said it mostly helps mothers who find out late in pregnancy that their fetuses have severe defects."

"Abortions after 19 weeks of gestation" includes those "routinely performed on all patients 20 through 24 weeks" ; "selected patients 25 through 26 weeks" and "patients 26 weeks and over" (as listed above).

I was referring to education to elimate unwanted pregnancies. No pregnancy, no abortion. It very easy in 2006 to prevent pregnancy, and I'd like to stress this first.

I do not believe it to be an "either / or" situation. Any in-roads that can be made toward eliminating abortions (any type), should be traveled. We are dealing with the "education" issue in a separate thread so I won't continue this train of thought here.

I don't think that the DoI has much legislative value in this debate.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biglaugh.gif. Forgive me for laughing, I just find this stance quite amusing. Considering this country was founded on the principle of self-evident truths, that of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I find the DoI of immense value and relevance to this debate.

I doubt that the Founding Fathers considered pregnancy as a "right to life" issue, as they didn't see fit to include pregnancies in the first national census.

I have no doubt the Founding Fathers didn't include "pregnancies" in the first national consensus because never in a million years would they have conceived of advocates for the killing of pre-born children.

Hmmm. Could it possibly have something to do with the idea of holding some "truths to be self-evident"? Is it absolutely necessary to point out what is true, self-evident, and unalienable (again)?

dPrasse

04-04-2006, 08:30 AM

No one can be as unfathomably stupid as you are making yourself out to be and still have the brain capacity to walk and breathe simultaneously.

Did anybody check this twits brain for cognitive function ?
Maybe the troll is just a parastic head ?

I love the "viability argument" ....
humans are not viable outside of their natural surroundings , no matter what stage of life ... humans are not viable in deep water without a "protective environment" ... humans are not viable in outer space without a "Protective environment" ... the mothers womb is an unborn humans "protective environment" ...

So , shall we just toss the next drowning victim in the garbage can just because he/she obviously wasn't "viable" under the water ?

Nutrider , I wonder which "procedure" actually causes less pain ... brains being sucked out of the skull or just a bash to the head with a hammer ??

I'd be willing to bet that the bash to the head is quicker for the murdered infant ... maybe we can get some of those really smart fstdt members to volunteer ??

DoctorDoom

04-04-2006, 10:16 AM

No procedure would cause pain to a liberaloser. Feeling pain requires a functioning brain.

ooh_child

04-07-2006, 06:33 PM

Child, I've been round and round with you and your ilk over at your home site. No matter what is said, unless we answer, "unrestricted abortion is OK," you will never stop arguing.

My biggest issue with abortion is on how easy one is to get nowadays and how it is so often used as an alternative. Never mind health risks of a developing child or the mother, some women just like to do the deed but don't want the responsibility of becoming a mother. I think the choice is made WHEN she chooses to do the deed! It's like crime, if you don't want to suffer the consequence, don't do it.

Wulfie, you have not been round & round with me, as I have not posted about this subject over there. BTW, I consider my home site the JREF forum. Just so you know.

And thanks for your insight into the minds of women who've had abortions. I'm sure you've interviewed thousands of women to determine how they view their pregnancy. I'm also sure they were very welcoming to someone like you, to invite you to particpate in making their decisions!

MHB

Melz

04-07-2006, 06:41 PM

Wulfie, you have not been round & round with me, as I have not posted about this subject over there. BTW, I consider my home site the JREF forum. Just so you know.

And thanks for your insight into the minds of women who've had abortions. I'm sure you've interviewed thousands of women to determine how they view their pregnancy. I'm also sure they were very welcoming to someone like you, to invite you to particpate in making their decisions!

MHB

Are you always this bitchy? I am surpised (well, not really) that Hms has given you so much leeway and time/effort.

Beo, being a MAN and such, has just as much right to his opinion and viewpoints on abortion than any female. So far, I trust his opinions and none of them have seemed too "manly" for the subject.

And as a man, he SHOULD be welcomed into any decision-making participation when it comes to the abortion of a child he fathered, don't you believe so (this is hypothetical, of course)? Your comment was true feminist in form with something from the 1970's reborn into common liberal pro-death, pro-me attitude.

How sad to be pro-"you" and so anti-"baby." And what a discredit to society to ever support that exact matching.

ooh_child

04-07-2006, 06:45 PM

No, I want a law that makes Partion Birth Abortions illegal, period.

So, in the case of the ban currently being supported by the Bush administration and winding its way through the courts, you oppose it? After all, the government's own witness acknowledged that it would not necessarily prevent D & X's in the second trimester.

I have no doubt the Founding Fathers didn't include "pregnancies" in the first national consensus because never in a million years would they have conceived of advocates for the killing of pre-born children.

No, the Founding Fathers didn't include pregnancies in the first national census because they didn't view them as citizens requiring representation. The census was necessary to establish the representational government. If they thought a pregnancy was a citizen with rights, then they would have been counted & would have been included in the population totals.

Regards,

MHB

Beowulf

04-07-2006, 07:06 PM

And thanks for your insight into the minds of women who've had abortions. I'm sure you've interviewed thousands of women to determine how they view their pregnancy. I'm also sure they were very welcoming to someone like you, to invite you to particpate in making their decisions!

Show me where I made a decision for thousands of women? You totally missed my point but of you, I expect it.

And I'm rather disappointed you didn't go round and round with me on this matter at Fundies. At least you had the guts to come here and bring it on!

Trevelyan

04-08-2006, 10:29 AM

I oppose it unless it is absolutely necessary to save the mother's life.

DoctorDoom

04-08-2006, 12:18 PM

At least you had the guts to come here and bring it on!There it's SOP, and no one would care. Here it's trolling. And the child is here to troll.

DoctorDoom

04-08-2006, 12:21 PM

I oppose it unless it is absolutely necessary to save the mother's life.If that is so, then you oppose it 100%. There is no known medical condition that requires killing a nearly-delivered baby by sucking its brains out "to save the mother's life." PBA has NEVER been done for that reason. It's just a rationalization for defending an abomination.

Pendragon_6

04-08-2006, 12:44 PM

It's been my experience, as I could document, that on this issue [gun control] it's your side who wouldn't give even the slightest concession in the interests of sanity and sound policy. They're one step removed from demanding that people be charged with mass murder for masturbating__brilliant liberal
=========================================

It's been my experience [documented]that I spent all the Klinton years fighting, along with the rest of the NRA, to preserve our Second Amendment rights. Don't hand me that shit that libsuck assholes only wanted 'sane' restrictions. There's already 20,000 'sane restrictions' on owning guns. Why the hell would you think another restriction is necessary?
[sorry for going off-topic]

HomeschoolrsRUs

04-08-2006, 01:19 PM

So, in the case of the ban currently being supported by the Bush administration and winding its way through the courts, you oppose it? After all, the government's own witness acknowledged that it would not necessarily prevent D & X's in the second trimester.

I support any legislation which moves us closer to the day that abortion will be outlawed. If what's offered is all we can get right now, so be it; but I won't be satisfied or accept it as is, and will continue to work toward the goal of abortion outlawed.

No, the Founding Fathers didn't include pregnancies in the first national census because they didn't view them as citizens requiring representation. The census was necessary to establish the representational government. If they thought a pregnancy was a citizen with rights, then they would have been counted & would have been included in the population totals.

They didn't mention born children either, did they? Does that mean they didn't believe them to be citizens requiring representation? No, back then it just wouldn't have occurred to them the necessity to protect innocent life in such a manner (other than the declaration in the DoI), because abortion as a "right" or "choice" was inconceivable to them. We don't just "discover" new rights, and certainly not the "self-evident, unalienable" ones.

Trevelyan

04-08-2006, 06:20 PM

If that is so, then you oppose it 100%. There is no known medical condition that requires killing a nearly-delivered baby by sucking its brains out "to save the mother's life." PBA has NEVER been done for that reason. It's just a rationalization for defending an abomination.

Well Ok, then I oppose it 100% if that is indeed the case. I am not yet a doctor, nor have I read medical literature concerning partial-birth abortion, so I don’t know. I am just using the qualifier in case there are cases in which it would be absolutely necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

nicki33

04-08-2006, 10:19 PM

ooh,
What is with the Hey Homes?

You want the government to stay out of the abortion issue? I agree, they NEVER should have legalized it using a false "Rights" arguement in the first place!

You don't want government involvement?

How about you libs keep your hands out of our pockets, the working citizens of America!

How about the responsibility of the government to protect our borders which ACTUALLY IS in the constitution.

There is never a necessary reason for an abortion. It is the easy way out.
The sheeple need to stick a $5- hoodie on it and not get pregnant in the first place if they are not ready. This society is all about instant gratification, and abortion is the biggest cop out there is! As parents, we NEED to teach our children to wait, and if they are going to do it anyway, wear the "hoodie"!

I know you'll never "get it" but that will never make abortion RIGHT!

Never!

HomeschoolrsRUs

04-08-2006, 10:26 PM

ooh,
What is with the Hey Homes?

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/wave.gif

I am Homes (HomeschoolrsRUs, some call me Homes others call me Hms), and she was addressing me.

nicki33

04-08-2006, 10:33 PM

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/wave.gif

I am Homes (HomeschoolrsRUs, some call me Homes others call me Hms), and she was addressing me.

Sorry Homes,

I apologize to all. I'm new at this so...

I guess I should learn who's who before I run my mouth. This got so hot that I was thinking it was something disrespectful.

Nice to meet you though!

Nic

HomeschoolrsRUs

04-09-2006, 05:15 PM

Sorry Homes,

I apologize to all. I'm new at this so...

I guess I should learn who's who before I run my mouth. This got so hot that I was thinking it was something disrespectful.

Nice to meet you though!

Nic

Welcome to FC, Nicki --
No apology is necessary, http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif , no offense was taken. It does seem strange to see someone continually begin their posts with "Hey Homes" :smirky: (if you aren't familiar with the situation) . Sometimes there might be several conversations going on at once between different freecers (FC members) so some of us (I usually try to employ the method myself, but not always), like to preface our posts with the name associated with a particular post we are replying to.

I can certainly understand this issue being a hot one ... you will find me all over threads on this issue as it is extememly personal for me.

Anyhoo, glad to have you aboard, and I look forward to reading more of your posts . . .
Happy Posting,
Hms

Beowulf

04-10-2006, 06:35 PM

How about you libs keep your hands out of our pockets, the working citizens of America!

Won't happen, Nikki. Democrats seem to think that the answer to everything is another tax increase, basically, "soak the working people." To them it's spend, spend, spend with no accountability to where the money goes.

OK, back to the issue at hand.

ooh_child

04-10-2006, 06:39 PM

They didn't mention born children either, did they?

Actually, yes, they did. I guess you didn't have a chance to check out what I was referring to, so here's a link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html

Here's the relevant section:

The act directed that the names of the heads of families be recorded, the number of white males sixteen and older, the number of white males under sixteen, the number of white females, the number of all other free persons, and the number of slaves.

Does that mean they didn't believe them to be citizens requiring representation? No, back then it just wouldn't have occurred to them the necessity to protect innocent life in such a manner (other than the declaration in the DoI), because abortion as a "right" or "choice" was inconceivable to them. We don't just "discover" new rights, and certainly not the "self-evident, unalienable" ones.

Do you care to change any of your comments, in light of the above info?

This is why I said that the DoI has little legislative value in this instance. Although you interpret what the Founding Fathers intent was, I see it differently.

Regards,

MHB

dPrasse

04-10-2006, 06:43 PM

No , there is no excuse for sucking the brains out of a living , partially born child ... I've spent the last month in a Neo-Natal ICU surrounded by babies that were born too early and they are just as human as full termers .... To even think that it is somehow ok to suck there brains out is just too in-human for me to fathom ...

ooh_child

04-10-2006, 06:46 PM

ooh,
What is with the Hey Homes?
Hi Nicki, I see Homes already clued you in, so I'll leave it at that.

You want the government to stay out of the abortion issue? I agree, they NEVER should have legalized it using a false "Rights" arguement in the first place!

You don't want government involvement?

How about you libs keep your hands out of our pockets, the working citizens of America!

How about the responsibility of the government to protect our borders which ACTUALLY IS in the constitution.
I fail to see what this adds to our discussion. What do our taxes & protecting borders have to do with abortion? :question:

There is never a necessary reason for an abortion. It is the easy way out.
The sheeple need to stick a $5- hoodie on it and not get pregnant in the first place if they are not ready. This society is all about instant gratification, and abortion is the biggest cop out there is! As parents, we NEED to teach our children to wait, and if they are going to do it anyway, wear the "hoodie"!
I'm entirely behind birth control & the frequent use of it. I'd rather prevent the pregnancy in the first place. I still don't see what this has to do with PBA, though.

I know you'll never "get it" but that will never make abortion RIGHT!

Never!
Thanks for that vote of confidence, sweetie! :rolleyes:

MHB

HomeschoolrsRUs

04-10-2006, 07:37 PM

Actually, yes, they did. I guess you didn't have a chance to check out what I was referring to, so here's a link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html)

Here's the relevant section:

The act directed that the names of the heads of families be recorded, the number of white males sixteen and older, the number of white males under sixteen, the number of white females, the number of all other free persons, and the number of slaves.

Do you care to change any of your comments, in light of the above info?

Yes I would like to amend my comments, or should I say clarify them, and I thank you for pointing out the opportunity. I most certainly DID misread your post (and even worse for me, I continued to misread it until this post).

I was talking about DoI, NOT the Constitution -- which is why I misread your quotation (even though it was absolutely obvious, and I can only say I have no excuse other than my pure focus on the DoI) regarding the consensus.

This is why I said that the DoI has little legislative value in this instance. Although you interpret what the Founding Fathers intent was, I see it differently.

Yes, I most certainly do interpret it differently ... the DoI specifically lists THREE unalienable, self-evident rights. In respect to the DoI ONLY, please provide me with YOUR interpretation as to the differences in those three self-evident, unalienable rights:

1) the right to life = what does it mean?
2) the right to liberty = what does that entail?
3) the right to PURSUE happiness = what's the difference between the PURSUIT of happiness, happiness itself, and why is one a right but not the other?

Just for reference, here is my interpretation of them:

"We hold these truths1 to be self-evident2, that all men3 are created equal4, that they are endowed by their Creator5 with certain6 unalienable7 Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

The rights above are 1) truth, 2) self-evident, 3) concern all men (mankind), 4) equal, 5) endowed by a Creator, 6) certain, and 7) unalienable. In other words they are completely understood, recognized, agreed upon, and individually specific. The first right listed is that of "Life." It can ONLY mean the right of existence, BECAUSE the other two rights deal with HOW we have a right to live that existence ... with liberty, and with the ability to pursue happiness (we are not granted the right TO happiness).

Ergo, each and every person's "right to life" (right to exist) is first and foremost before all other rights and extended equally to all, it is endowed by a Creator NOT man and therefore it is not man's to negate for another, it applies to ALL human life, it is individual specific, and is NOT negated by the right to "pursue happiness" (which could be claimed by the (so-called) "mother."

One final note, the DoI precedes the Constitution, SO if it is not specifically listed IN the Constitution, that means it was already agreed upon and settled PRIOR to the Constitution, and not forseen that anybody would EVER question or refute it (hence the references to "self-evident truths" and "certain unalienable rights").