Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Most abortions happen before 10 weeks, so your picture is pointless.
Besides the fact, as KG pointed out in another thread, it really doesn't matter what the fetus looks like. Are you less pro-life when it looks like a kidney bean?
~Another pro baby killer illuminates the argument with their ignorance~
No matter what stage a baby is killed in the womb, it is a living human being. The moment it attaches to the uterine wall it becomes viable so long as no one or no outside force, kills it. THAT is the point. The photograph illustrates the humanity that people like you deny in order to justify killing unborn babies.
Your photo is nothing but an attempt at emotional blackmail.
Women who have abortions at 21 weeks( which btw is illegal in many states) are desperate, often choosing abortion when it's clear the fetus is severaly deformed.
Also, I never claimed it wasn't alive, merely that it isn't a person.
~Another pro baby killer illuminates the argument with their ignorance~
No matter what stage a baby is killed in the womb, it is a living human being. The moment it attaches to the uterine wall it becomes viable so long as no one or no outside force, kills it. THAT is the point. The photograph illustrates the humanity that people like you deny in order to justify killing unborn babies.
Your photo is nothing but an attempt at emotional blackmail.
Yeah...so? What's the matter? Don't like looking at stuff like this and it makes you feel guilty? You should feel guilty.
Women who have abortions at 21 weeks( which btw is illegal in many states) are desperate, often choosing abortion when it's clear the fetus is severaly deformed.
Also, I never claimed it wasn't alive, merely that it isn't a person.
Must have been a person, since it was asleep. What is it if it isn't a person? A rock? A paper bag? A booger? What? Further, doesn't the individual in the picture prove it was a person? Looks like a person too me. I don't know what it is you're seeing.
Abortion is a losing issue on a national level for Reps. It's trying to impose moral values on a majority that doesn't want it. It's seeking a political remedy for what is considered a religious issue. 50% of Catholics voted for Obama. Reps seem to be all over the board on the issue while trying to avoid the subject. I think we need a clear, this is what we stand for, message. There are over 1 million abortions in the US every year. We are not outlawing abortion we are moving forward with government sponsored abortion. There is no magic wand to stop abortion, why not use tactics that have a chance of success.
It doesn't matter anymore. Just looking at the second post you get the picture. They only listen to information that feeds their fire. Right up till the day of the election many of them believed that Mittens would win in a landslide. They are so wrong on every issue that concerns women that abortion isn't even that big of a deal outside of their bubble.
We believed Obama would win.
Americans vote themselves a paycheck these days first and foremost.
Obama hands out the most candy.
Nothing else matters.
Your photo is nothing but an attempt at emotional blackmail.
Yeah...so? What's the matter? Don't like looking at stuff like this and it makes you feel guilty? You should feel guilty.
Women who have abortions at 21 weeks( which btw is illegal in many states) are desperate, often choosing abortion when it's clear the fetus is severaly deformed.
Also, I never claimed it wasn't alive, merely that it isn't a person.
Must have been a person, since it was asleep. What is it if it isn't a person? A rock? A paper bag? A booger? What? Further, doesn't the individual in the picture prove it was a person? Looks like a person too me. I don't know what it is you're seeing.
By your logic, it is less of a person when it has no eyes or mouth and resembles a bean more than a human.
It doesn't matter anymore. Just looking at the second post you get the picture. They only listen to information that feeds their fire. Right up till the day of the election many of them believed that Mittens would win in a landslide. They are so wrong on every issue that concerns women that abortion isn't even that big of a deal outside of their bubble.
We believed Obama would win.
Americans vote themselves a paycheck these days first and foremost.
Obama hands out the most candy.
Nothing else matters.
I've no clue who the we is. I've seen so many ignorant ass slurps here, who believed the predictions of Karl Rove and Toe Suck Morris. There've been those here who claimed that all the analysis of Legitimate polls were all skewed, because Democrats were oversampled. It turned out that Democrats were undersampled.
Which right winger am I supposed to now believe who pretends to speak for some "we"?
This fetus is no different the millions killed in the name of "choice" except instead of being killed he was operated on to correct a defect while he still resided in his mother's womb.
AMAZING: A picture began circulating in November 2002. It should be "The Picture of the Year," or perhaps, "Picture of the Decade." It won't be. In fact, unless you obtained a copy of the U.S. paper which published it, you probably would never have seen it.
The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.
During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.
The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, "Hand of Hope." The text explaining the picture begins, "The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life."
Little Samuel's mother said they "wept for days" when they saw the picture. She said, "The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person" Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful. Now see the actual picture, and it is awesome...incredible....and hey, pass it on! The world needs to see this one!
Here he is 10 years later
Ten Years Later, Boy's 'Hand of Hope' Continues to Spark Debate | Fox News
Lol. Propaganda. The fetus didn't reach out at all, it was asleep. Youve been duped by the lifers.
snopes.com: Fetal Surgery Photo
WTF point do you really think you are making? That the doctor made sure the fetus (aka pre term infant) was anesthetized so it could not feel pain? Like DUH! However the actual doctor doing the surgery attests that even though his tiny little patient (patient mind you) was being operated on he still grasped the Dr.'s finger you blathering idiot!
Do obvious points always miss the mark with you?
Yeah...so? What's the matter? Don't like looking at stuff like this and it makes you feel guilty? You should feel guilty.
Must have been a person, since it was asleep. What is it if it isn't a person? A rock? A paper bag? A booger? What? Further, doesn't the individual in the picture prove it was a person? Looks like a person too me. I don't know what it is you're seeing.
By your logic, it is less of a person when it has no eyes or mouth and resembles a bean more than a human.
Huh?
So lifers...is the skeleton of a man who died 20 years ago a person?
Is a body in the morgue a person?
I guess you must think so.
So lifers...is the skeleton of a man who died 20 years ago a person?
Is a body in the morgue a person?
I guess you must think so.
"I'm a fucking idiot, and I don't know the difference between alive and dead, and I PROUDLY display my ignorance as though it was brilliance!"
Tell you what, twat waffle. You tell us the difference between you and a skeleton or a corpse, and then, if it's not as completely, abysmally stupid as everything ELSE you ever say, we can apply the exact same logic to a fetus. Duuuuh.
Was he a person before he died?
Yup.
So lifers...is the skeleton of a man who died 20 years ago a person?
Is a body in the morgue a person?
I guess you must think so.
"I'm a fucking idiot, and I don't know the difference between alive and dead, and I PROUDLY display my ignorance as though it was brilliance!"
Tell you what, twat waffle. You tell us the difference between you and a skeleton or a corpse, and then, if it's not as completely, abysmally stupid as everything ELSE you ever say, we can apply the exact same logic to a fetus. Duuuuh.
You certainly do have a way with words sometimes. LOL!
Was he a person before he died?
Yup.
But not after he died. You become a person when you are born, you cease to be a person when you die.
Was he a person before he died?
Yup.
But not after he died. You become a person when you are born, you cease to be a person when you die.
No, you are a person when you are granted life, and you cease when you die.
You're so stupid you don't even realize your stupid little meme doesn't even work. For it to work you'd be a person when you're born, and no longer a person when you enter back into the womb. Which of course doesn't happen.
People aren't made human by an ACT. The act of birth doesn't make a person a person; recognition by child's mother doesn't grant him humanity. The humanity exists from life onward, and is not dependent upon another person's actions.
Progressives don't get that. You honestly believe people only have rights as they are granted to them by stronger, more powerful people.
Which is why you're foul.
Was he a person before he died?
Yup.
But not after he died. You become a person when you are born, you cease to be a person when you die.
So, if one becomes a person when they're born, should an individual who kills a woman's unborn child due to his/her negligence or even intent, such as drunk driving, face charges of murder, for killing the unborn child? Or, should he/she face no consequences whatsoever for the death of the unborn child? It's a simple question which should require only a simple answer. Yes, or no.
It's a baby inside you.
Now if the rest of you wish to think of it as a "fetus" because you've never had life inside you, by all means rock on.
But for those of us who've had a dinner plate kicked clean off your belly, it's a baby.
Argue away all you want. You call it a fetus. I call it my baby.
