Why stop with abortion? I say euthanize every baby born with a defect of any kind and sterilize their parents so that they cannot reproduce and create any more inferior offspring.
I also believe in involuntary sterilization for anyone on their second trip to the abortion clinic.
I also say euthanize every senior citizen when they get to a point that they will require long term care. Who needs the drain?
And every and any living thing that annoys me in any way.... got to go.
Bears and quinneys of course are exempt to any of these rules.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Why stop with abortion? I say euthanize every baby born with a defect of any kind and sterilize their parents so that they cannot reproduce and create any more inferior offspring.
I also believe in involuntary sterilization for anyone on their second trip to the abortion clinic.
I also say euthanize every senior citizen when they get to a point that they will require long term care. Who needs the drain?
And every and any living thing that annoys me in any way.... got to go.
Yes! We have got to start a third party with this platform, pronto!
real life wrote:CI,
If a woman goes in for an abortion, but the procedure fails and the baby is born alive, should the baby be given medical care?
Do you mean before or after the doctor is shot to death?
Some abortion survivors and their stories
Quote: Gianna Jessen
On April 6, 1977, Gianna's 17 year old birthmother (named Tina) sought a saline abortion at seven months pregnant. Saline abortions involve injecting a caustic saline solution into the amniotic fluid, which (normally) causes the fetus to be scalded to death and then delivered dead. In this case, however, things didn't go according to plan. In the early hours of April 7th, Tina went into labor and gave birth to a living baby girl, Gianna. Fortunately for Gianna, she was born before the abortionist had arrived at the clinic for the day. As a result, instead of being killed at birth by the abortionist, she was transported to a hospital. She was severely injured by the abortion attempt, requiring a three month stay in the hospital, but she survived to be placed in a foster family specializing in high risk babies.
As a result of injuries from the abortion, Gianna was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Doctors believed she would never be able to sit up, let alone walk. She surpassed all expectations. Today she is able to run, dance, and walk...and has even taken up rock climbing. She has also become a tireless advocate for the pro-life cause.
Many would expect Gianna to be bitter or angry about the fact her birthmother tried to abort her, especially at such a late point in the pregnancy. However, Gianna does not have any hatred towards her birthmother. She has forgiven her mother for the traumatic circumstances of her birth and treats the post-abortion women who hear her speak with compassion.
On April 22, 1996, Gianna testified before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of abortion. Sadly, out of 13 members of the subcommittee, only 2 were willing to listen to her testimony; abortion supporters boycotted the meeting.
Quote: Ana Rosa Rodriguez
Look at the picture of Ana Rosa Rodriguez on the left. At first glance, she might look like an average little girl to you. However, if you look closely, you'll notice that this child is missing her right arm. That's because her arm was ripped off in the process of an abortion on New York's Lower East Side in October of 1991. Ana Rosa was 32 weeks old at the time of the abortion. It was performed by legal abortionist Abu Hayat. Rosa, Ana Rosa's mother (who was only 20 years old at the time), had told Hayat that she had changed her mind and didn't want to go through with the abortion.
"He said that it was impossible to stop, that I had to continue," Rosa told New York Newsday. According to Rosa, Hayat's assistants held her down while he sedated her. When she awoke, she was told that the abortion was incomplete and that she should come back the following day. That evening, however, she experienced increasing pain and bleeding. Her mother took her to Jamaica Hospital by taxi, where, five hours later, baby Ana Rosa was born. Aside from the loss of her right arm, Ana Rosa is a perfectly healthy little girl.
As unfortunate as the maiming of Ana Rosa was, she and her mother are very lucky they escaped from Hayat without further injury. Other incidents Hayat, a member of the National Abortion Federation, was involved in:
On September 18, 1990, Hayat performed an abortion on 17 year old Sophie McCoy. The next day she was taken to a hospital and found to have a perforated uterus and sepsis. An emergency hysterectomy was performed, but Sophie developed disseminated intravascular coagulopahty and died on September 26. Sophie's mother found paperwork for Hayat's facility in Sophie's coat pocket. The case was reported to the district attorney and the New York Health Department, but nobody took any action against Hayat
In March 1991, Hayat refused to complete an abortion on Marie Moise after he demanded an additional payment of $500 in the middle of the abortion and Moise's husband could not pay the $500. He forced the woman to leave the clinic bleeding and with an incomplete abortion. She nearly died from the resulting infection.
There have been several allegations accusing Hayat of sexually assaulting/fondling his abortion patients.
Even though all of the above happened before Ana Rosa's brush with Hayat, these previous incidents were not considered "serious enough" by New York authorities to take any action against Hayat. The maiming of Ana Rosa may have also gone ignored except that it drew intense media scrutiny. When news broke of Hayat's arrest in connection with the assault on Ana Rosa, at least seven women called a police hotline to claim he had also botched their abortions.
Quote: Heidi Huffman
In 1978, Tina Huffman was a pregnant, unwed 17-year-old from a broken, dysfunctional home. Her mom and dad, as well as her boyfriend's parents, adamantly insisted she had only one option: abortion. Tina yielded to their demands and had a suction abortion. But the abortionist "missed" Baby Heidi, even though he took most of the placenta and amniotic fluid. Heidi was delivered by C-section several months later. From her earliest years, Heidi attended pro-life rallies, programs and conferences with her mom, and then graduated to picketing and sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics.
Heidi herself says, "I believe that all young people are survivors of abortion, just like I am, because they too could have been killed under the current policy of our government, which declared us "non-persons" when we were in the womb."
from
http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/survivors.html
for others google abortion survivor
real, Exactly how does those abortions affect you personally? (Besides your tiny mind who doesn't have any understanding of a) wars that kill innocent children, b) infanticide practiced in some countries, and c) the personal choice made by the mother?)
Since I'm a guy, I probably shouldn't care about rape victims either, is that about it?
real life wrote:Since I'm a guy, I probably shouldn't care about rape victims either, is that about it?
You can care or not care; it isn't going to change any time soon to stop it - even with laws that prohibit it. How does those rapes affect you personally?
Rapes happen in almost all cultures. So, what's your point?
I guess my point at this point is that pointed discussion with you is pointless.
One need not be the victim or the potential victim of an injustice to know that such an act is wrong and should not be allowed.
Should only the elderly care about elder abuse?
Should adults be nonchalant about child abuse?
Should whites be indifferent to lynchings of blacks?
Should ..................
Never mind. Put your head back in the sand, CI.
real, Your care about most issues are only vocal; what have you done to prevent those abuses? Do you really think that voicing your concern has any meaning in this world? What about those estimated 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed by our soldiers. What concern have you shown for them? And that includes many, many, innocent women and children.
Get a grip on life.
real life wrote:I guess my point at this point is that pointed discussion with you is pointless.
One need not be the victim or the potential victim of an injustice to know that such an act is wrong and should not be allowed.
Should only the elderly care about elder abuse?
Should adults be nonchalant about child abuse?
Should whites be indifferent to lynchings of blacks?
Should ..................
Never mind. Put your head back in the sand, CI.
real, Believe it or not there are laws on the books about all the abuses on your list. That's what the legal system is all about; to make an effort to minimize those abuses. But as human nature is not controllable 100 percent of the time, there is very little any one individual can do to influence those crimes. Your reality is based on ignorance about life - and the laws of our country.
cicerone imposter wrote:real life wrote:I guess my point at this point is that pointed discussion with you is pointless.
One need not be the victim or the potential victim of an injustice to know that such an act is wrong and should not be allowed.
Should only the elderly care about elder abuse?
Should adults be nonchalant about child abuse?
Should whites be indifferent to lynchings of blacks?
Should ..................
Never mind. Put your head back in the sand, CI.
real, Believe it or not there are laws on the books about all the abuses on your list. That's what the legal system is all about; to make an effort to minimize those abuses. But as human nature is not controllable 100 percent of the time, there is very little any one individual can do to influence those crimes. Your reality is based on ignorance about life - and the laws of our country.
That's right there are laws.
But there aren't laws against child abuse because only children spoke against it. Adults did too.
There aren't laws against lyching because only blacks said it was wrong. Whites did too.
Your ridiculous 'why should you be concerned about abortion, it doesn't affect you? ' is the lamest garbage imaginable.
yeah duh I've already been born, so I won't be aborted , nor the victim of an abortion. What an astute observation. You are a genius.
real wrote: Your ridiculous 'why should you be concerned about abortion, it doesn't affect you? ' is the lamest garbage imaginable.
Please explain how this is "the lamest garbage imaginable" dear wise one?
real life wrote:I guess my point at this point is that pointed discussion with you is pointless.
I like that. I'm going to put it in the sig lines thread.
Let's look at Obama's deceit on the Born Alive Act. As the sole spokesman against the bill, he said:
Quote: ... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
The bill was written concerning babies that are born alive after a failed abortion.
But notice that even AFTER the intended victim has exited the mother's womb and been born alive, that Obama keeps referring to him/her as a FETUS.
A baby is no longer a fetus when it is born. Even proabortion liberals ought to be able to agree with that.
RL is going to reiterate everyone of his anti-choice rhetoric here as if it hasn't been throughly refuted in the past with cold hard fact.
The ruling on partial birth abortion was not a big blow against the pro-choice movement. What was scary and dangerous about that ruling was that the supreme court referred to "P.A.S." (post abortion syndrome) in their ruling yet strangely at the same time acknowledged that it wasn't supported by science or recognized by the A.P.A..
RL has launched his favorite rhetoric here - Rape, Lynching, and Child Abuse, and why should he care if it doesn't have to do with him. As pointed out tom him numerous times, the aforementioned crimes create social disorder. Abortion cannot do this.
RL will demonize a woman (or couple) for having an abortion, and will be extremely dismissive of the notion that it could be justified. He'll paint every woman thinking of abortion as...
1) Not understanding what is inside them - stupid.
2) Not wanting to deal with the responsibility - lazy.
3) Uncaring about human life - cruel
4) etc - whatever pushes your buttons.
What he'll conveniently ignore is the facts.
FACT - What is inside a woman is not another species, and nobody thinks it is.
FACT - For unplanned pregnancies, the same precent of abortions happen for women who have no children and women with 4 or more children.
FACT - Approximately 46 Million abortions happen every year. 20 Million of which happen in countries where abortion is illegal.
I think that a woman who has had 4 or more babies already is more aware than most about what is inside her. She obviously understands what it takes to have a child and raise it (assuming she kept them). The idea that these women are stupid or lazy is ridiculous.
Abortion is a hard thing to think about. It invokes a great deal of emotion. However, it's not the problem, it's the symptom. It is a socio-economical issue, but it's easier to nail stone a woman for making her choice rather than acknowledge the environment around her.
If you are pro-life, at one point you have to face a dilemma: Do I want fewer abortions, or do I want moral validation?
RL is all for taking the choice away from the woman and giving it to the government, as long as the government would make the choice he would. If the government was one where it limited the number of children we could have, would he be so quick to give away that choice?
If you want fewer abortions in this world, or even just in the United States, you need to help enable a woman to CHOOSE to keep her unborn. You need social support programs, sexual education, schools, jobs, health care, and wage raises / tax breaks for those who NEED it. Yeah it's a lot of stuff for a government to do, but it's also kind of what they are supposed to do. I suppose it's easier to judge someone for what they do, rather than be judged for what you aren't doing.
If abortion is illegal, how do we care for all the orphans? Who pays for it?
If abortion is illegal, what is the sentence for a woman who gets one? Do we have space in our prisons for this?
Prove to me that we can place every child in a home, and give them an education so that they can have a chance to become the doctor that cures cancer (like I've been told for years now...) and then, I'll be more receptive to the notion of restrictive legislation.
I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I support a woman's right to choose to abort her unborn. I support her right to choose to keep her unborn. I support her right to give her baby up for adoption. I support stem-cell research and the use of SCNT. I support IVT for families having a difficulty getting pregnant.
I see the ruling of Roe v. Wade as being a thorough ruling balancing the interests of the woman, unborn, and the state.
I do not oppose the regulation of abortion practices in terms of the methods used, health and safety standards, pre-counseling, inpatient and outpatient services as long as the choice is not being threatened.
Lastly, since RL will equate all forms of life, a thought: "A seed is not a tree."
So what is it? Fewer abortions or moral validation from a federal authority? What's your objective?
T
K
O
Deist,
You and CI both conveniently ignore the point I've made and want to sidetrack this discussion into an abortion discussion.
Obama refused protection for children who WERE ALREADY BORN.
real life wrote:The bill was written concerning babies that are born alive after a failed abortion.
Have you ever read the text of the bill?
joefromchicago wrote:real life wrote:The bill was written concerning babies that are born alive after a failed abortion.
Have you ever read the text of the bill?
real and his companions have no idea what they are talking about; all they know is that a fetus has a soul and therefore a human. Beyond that, whether it's about laws and their misconception about biology, they have no clue. Their primary goal to stop all abortions is not only not realistic, but beyond their "control;" something that extremists are won't to do. After all, that's why they are extremists with no common sense or reality.
