|
|
Post by Foamy Dog on Jan 25, 2002 0:42:51 GMT -5
What the HELL are people thinking?!?!
I know, they aren't thinking! Partial birth abortion has to be the most barbaric thing I have ever heard of. Listen folks, birth control is free and there is simply no excuse for it.
That's right, no excuse. Some say "to save the life of the mother." No again:
"With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure's impact on a woman's cervix can put future pregnancies at risk."
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D.
Letter to the Editor The New York Times
September 26, 1996
"Most partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies" and "there is no obstetrical situation that requires the willful destruction of a partially delivered baby to protect the life, health or future of a woman."
Nancy Romer, M.D., Curtis Cook, M.D., Pamela Smith, M.D. and Joseph DeCook, M.D.
Letter to the Editor The Wall Street Journal
October 14, 1996
"Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." (The AMA supported the federal ban on partial-birth abortions passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton.)
Daniel H. Johnson, Jr., M.D.
Letter to the Editor The New York Times
May 26, 1997
There are other ways to do this without murdering (yes I said it, M U R D E R I N G) the innocent child. The only thing in the eyes of our screwed up legal system that separates this procedure from Murder One is a matter of inches (that the child's head is still in the birth canal.) Sounds like a pretty damn underhanded way to get away with killing someone to me.
Cases in point, both my wife and my older sister were born at less that 7 months through the pregnancy. I have seen children born as early as 4 months through. All of the aforementioned are now perfectly normal human beings; so it's crystal clear that partial birth abortion isn't anything more than premeditated murder.
But what about the right of a woman to do what she wants with her own body? That unborn fetus did not just appear--people need to take some responsibility for their actions. Furthermore, though the child is growing inside the mother's body, it is the child's body--another body altogther--not the mother's to discard like it was some wart on her big toe.
It's plain and simple despite what proponents of this may say: If you don't want a child or are not ready to take on the responsibility and/or the complications that canaccompany pregnancy or raising the child no matter the outcome -- birth control is free at the local health department.
No excuses.
--Foamy Dog
|
|
|
|
Post by Moe B on Aug 24, 2002 2:02:25 GMT -5
The liberals would like us to believe that there is some rare medical condition(s) that would make it "risky" for a woman to give birth to a live baby, as aposed to an internaly murdered one. We are well on the way to infanticide! What IS the real difference between the born and the unborn? What is so magic about a brief journey through the birth canal?
|
|
|
|
Post by HeadWound on Mar 8, 2003 14:28:03 GMT -5
 You are so right! What the HELL are they thinking and how can any physician pull a child out (partially) only to stab an infant in the back of the head and murder that helpless child and claim it is a woman's choice? I was watching TV the other night and saw a demonstration of the procedure. I was horrified. Have we as a society grown this callus to life as to murder another human at the convenience of an unwilling mother that was (in most cases) orginally a willing sexual partner? How dare the legislative branch (DEMOCRATS) try and make this a legitimate procedure. Their liberal and off-based moral character is a disgrace and it saddens me that so many people would march to murder an innocent child. Yet these same whacko hippocrites are willing to march for peace against a war that would bring death to innocent Iraqis. Doesn't make sense does it? But do liberals ever make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett7855 on May 26, 2003 16:25:45 GMT -5
Well on the way to infanticide? Barbra Streisand!!! Partial birth abortion is abortion!!  How can anyone in their right mind ever justify this  Talk about barbarism. What escapes me is the dearth of response to this topic, considering the length of time it's been posted and the number of timesa it's been read. Don't any of you folks have the guts to speak out against this "proceedure"? MURDER, I say, it is no less than MURDER!!!  Anyone who has this done and any "Doctor" who performs it should be sitting on death row or at minimum be serving life. Wait a minute, strike that Life bit--I don't want to feed them for thirty years while the bleeding heart libs try to get them off!  |
|
|
|
Post by Sandy on Jun 30, 2003 7:25:21 GMT -5
Why is this a Federal Issue? Even Murder is a state authority unless a federal agent is murdered! Why put this on the federal government?
We are turning America into a Federally controlled police state. Enough is Enough!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sentinel on Jul 3, 2003 12:19:18 GMT -5
killing babies after delivery is more defensible than partial-birth abortion. There's no difference between a baby on the outside and one on the way out. But, at least when it's on the outside killing it is easier and the baby can better be examined to determine if killing the baby is the desired thing.
Anyone who supports partial-birth abortion should only be considering how old a person should be before mommy loses the right to choose to kill it.
Sandy, do you object to RvW? It shouldn't be a federal issue, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett7855 on Jul 10, 2003 1:36:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by conservPuNK on Aug 21, 2003 21:48:58 GMT -5
I usually support Pro-choice, and believe that until a certin age/stage, the choice should still be open...WAIT! WAIT! don't get upset yet!
but when the child is five months into the development process, capable of living (with medical help) and is SO close to being born in its natural, healthy stage, that yanking it from the womb, stabbing it and throwning the body away is AWFUL, BARBARIC and close to murder. Now I am NOT talking about removing dead-borns (those who died in the womb and must be removed)
There shouldn't be any REASON for a women to kill something so close to having a chance...
thanks for letting me rant.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Oct 12, 2003 9:52:24 GMT -5
I don't know much about partial birth abortions but my instinct is to be anti such an act.
The argument that sometimes it is neccesary to save the life of the mother is one that deserves looking into more closley. But what about cesarian section? Why is this not possible in all cases? I would like to hear the evidece, I assume there must be some, that people who are in favour this procedure put forward.
|
|
Can see the Liberal viewpoint
Guest
|
Post by Can see the Liberal viewpoint on Nov 25, 2003 1:31:12 GMT -5
I have to go ahead and say that I am pro-choice. Do you see any capitals in that? No. I don't promote abortion as a form of birth control and I don't condone people that do use it as such, but, I have to point out that you are percieving the facts in a different fashion from some liberals.
I live in Seattle, which in itself is almost entirely liberal, and I am saying this to voice how much opposition I normally get on conservative views. No one, and I repeat, no one, that I know- even as far to the left as you can swing- cares for abortion. All are pro-choice, but they don't condone 'murder,' as you call it.
Partial birth abortion isn't even a medically recognizable term. Doctors know what is being implied, but they do not use that term. I think that by attempting to ban partial birth and abortion itself we are opening ourselves up to what would be more barbaric cases of wire hanger back alley treatment. When the child is still alive in the womb but their is no possible way of the child surviving without constant medical support I believe PBA is entirely condonable. Why sentence the child to a virtual death instead of a real one?
That is all I have to rant about, I hope that you can see which hill top I am shouting from. I appreciate the fact that you at least have viewed this topic and feel outspoken enough to voice your opinions and I thank you for that. Just please try to at least consider the 'liberal' view before you disect it vitriolically.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 25, 2003 3:39:07 GMT -5
No, why would there be capitals in that? Why should it not be used as birth control? To acknowledge that is to acknowledge that you DO realize it's wrong. ;D More women die today as a result of abortion than pre RvW.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSTLV Again on Dec 4, 2003 1:49:24 GMT -5
Why should it not be used as birth control? To acknowledge that is to acknowledge that you DO realize it's wrong.
I didn't say that it is wrong. I just do not see the point in going through the procedure to rid one of the child if their is no other viable reason for abortion other than that one doesn't want the child.
More women die today as a result of abortion than pre RvW.
[/quote]
I would have to ask where you found your numbers and if I could have a link to your source.
Thanks, Mo, for not exactly taking a fast stance on this. You seem to be playing more of a devils advocate than anything else.
Oh, and no offense, but death to the smileys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Dec 4, 2003 10:35:36 GMT -5
PBA is murder, pure and simple. The procedure is used so that the abortionist can avoid being charged with murder.
Now is it clear?
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Dec 4, 2003 15:31:10 GMT -5
CSTLV says:I must disagree. Partial Birth Abortion is not required in the circumstance you describe.
If there is a medical need to terminate a pregnancy, it can be accomplished in a much more humane manner than sucking the brains out of a child during the birthing process.
Can you inagine the Left Wing outcry if an inhumane procedure like that were used in dealing with, say, malformed kittens that were about to be born to a cat?
PITA would be going nutz about animal cruelty in a nanosecond.
Yet the Left is silent about this despicable procedure. Why? Because they se the political issue as being more important than addressing the inhumane cruelty to a living human being.
If the procedure were acceptable, why not demonstrate it on TV so we can all understand it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Dec 5, 2003 15:03:06 GMT -5
has anyone got any proof that this actually happens? i can't believe all the facts are being acuratly represented here.
|
|
