Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sarah Smith
In 1970, three years before Roe vs. Wade knocked down all laws against abortion in the United States, California had already legalized abortion. Sarah’s mother, Betty, had an abortion in Los Angeles. Neither she nor the the abortionist realized she was carrying twins. As a result, one of the twins--Sarah--survived the abortion.
"Somehow, miraculously, I survived!" says Sarah. "My twin brother wasn’t so lucky. Andrew was aborted and we lost him forever. Several weeks later, my mother was shocked to feel me kicking in her womb. She already had five children and she knew what it felt like when a baby kicked in the womb. She instantly knew that somehow she was still pregnant." Sarah’s mother went back to the doctor and told him she was still pregnant, that she had made a big mistake and that she wanted to keep this baby.
"To this day, my mother deeply regrets that abortion," says Sarah. "I know the pain is unbearable for her at times when she looks at me and knows she aborted my twin brother. Mom says ‘the protective hand of Almighty God saved my life,’ that God’s hand covered and hid me in her womb, and protected me from the scalpel of death."
Ximena Renaerts
Ximena's odessy with Vancouver General Hospital began on Dec. 16, 1985, the day she was born. After attempting an abortion at a free-standing mill in Bellingham, Wash. Ximena's birth mother entered VGH, where she gave birth. According to court documents, staff delivered the child into a "hat"--a plastic pot--and then senior nurse Vera Wood whisked her away. Ximena was placed in a room "where dead fetuses were stored," even though she was "moving, gasping, (and) crying weakly."
Court documents say Wood checked back some 26 minutes later, to find the child still alive. A nursing supervisor was called and arrived almost an hour after Ximena's birth. She found the child still in the "hat," uncovered, on a stainless-steel counter. By the time the Infant Transport Team arrived, Ximena had suffered a severe loss of heat, which in turn caused extensive and permanent brain damage.
Ximena's adoptive family eventually sued VGH for $10 million. Hospital officials petitioned to have the case heard before a judge only, but the B.C. Supreme Court ruled it would be best heard before a jury. In June of this year, facing the prospect of a public trial, the hospital settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money. All family members will say is that Ximena will be well taken care of.
Meanwhile, pro-life activists are calling for criminal charges to be laid. B.C.'s pro-abortion Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh initially balked at the idea of investigating, but then instructed his criminal justice branch to contact Vancouver police. As of press time, no announcement had been made on whether further action will be taken. The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons have claimed the incident is out of their jurisdiction.
VGH continues to face heat over the case. Pro-lifers are now handing out literature outside the hospital, warning women of the events surrounding Ximena's birth. Some pro-lifers are suggesting VGH's recent request for a no-protest "bubble zone" around the facility is an attempt to cover up the case and hide it from patients and possible donors.
But it seems unlikely officials will be able to put a lid on the story, since it may have happened before. A May 30, 1986 Vancouver Sun article quotes nurse Kathryn Larouche, who spent a year working in the VGH ward where abortions were committed. Larouche stated she saw three infants "die after they were delivered live."
"We were supposed to turn the other way," Larouche said. "We weren't supposed to do anything. There were a couple of people ... I don't want to say who. They told us, ‘Don't do anything. Leave it alone. It will die.'" The events left such emotional scars, Larouche eventually resigned. Five other nurses left with her.
VGH officials insist that, according to their records, there has been no other case where a "viable" infant was born and allowed to die. They have not provided an explanation of what "viable" means
I believe a majority of anti-abortionists would prefer to see the Constitution amended to protect the unborn.
True libertarians are not conservatives. Conservatives respect the constitution, even the part that says no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Libertarians are nothing more than civil rights liberals who would rather defend those presumed rights with bullets than laws.True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.
And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.
Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.
And that's just the way it is.
You mean as opposed to willful blindness? The RTL is gaurenteed in the constituion and no person shall be deprived of it without due process.True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.
Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.
^See what I mean about mental gymnastics?
No, its just what the constitution gaurentees. You may not take a life without due process. develope a process that must be followed and feel free to follow it, sans that, life is life.^See what I mean about mental gymnastics?
Yes. Straightforward logic does easily confound you.
the logic you speak, is merely just wanting control. you are a nanny.
Niether is bashing your neighbors kid in the head with a hammer, and depending on the kid, you are either for it or against it. But that doesn't mean it should be legal.wrong, this is not a real conservative.This is authoritarian-social conservative, the retarded cousin of conservatives.
Wrong. It is the thinking of a true conservatives. And when the issues are complex, and wrenching, as the abortion debate often is, true conservatives can and do reach differing conclusions. Such is the nature of the beast.
You silly libs with your false dichotomy labels and thinking cannot engage in such nuanced thinking. It eveidently hurts your tiny little pin heads.
That's right, jerkoff. Conservatism is not monolithic on this topic. But as a general rule, there is nothing whatsoever inconsistent with being a conservative and valuing life as the higher value in competing claims of important values.
Plasmaball-less, you simply (and obviously) just aren't bright enough to grasp any of this.
abortion is not a complex issue. Either you are for it or basically against it. Most people fall into those two columns.
( this is ignoring the whole 3rd trimester abortion issue, this issue tends to not go that far seeing how they are rare.) ( ha look at me trying to be civil to you, Whats wrong with me, you are too stupid)
You are nothing more than a fat little English nanny who wants to tell people what to do.
No as in the OP a real conservative realizes that it is up to the mother, father and doctor> I.E. A personal choice, and You lia. have ZERO say in the matter. You dont like that and retarded Social, authoritive cons can't handle that. Which in turn makes you and other retards, right leaning liberals nannies.
Go put your dress on, the father wants to bend you over.
Perhaps 'true' conservatives are pro-choice, perhaps not. The important question is, why should anyone care if they are a 'true' conservative? Believe in what you think is right, not what fits in some convenient label.
True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.
And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.
Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_ScotsmanFalse.
True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.
Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.
wrong, this is not a real conservative.This is authoritarian-social conservative, the retarded cousin of conservatives.
Yeah, they're sort of like "baby, toddler, child, adolescent, teen ager (admittedly these might not actually be human, more research is needed) youn adult, adult, old doddering fool, lots of names we have for human life.The "pre-born" ???False.
True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.
Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.
The buzz words you quacks come up with never cease to amuse me.
abortion is a social issue and should not be subject to government intervention one way or the other....
if a women wants to kill her unborn child ...and you can find a doctor to do it....go for it....
Perhaps 'true' conservatives are pro-choice, perhaps not. The important question is, why should anyone care if they are a 'true' conservative? Believe in what you think is right, not what fits in some convenient label.
Perhaps 'true' conservatives are pro-choice, perhaps not. The important question is, why should anyone care if they are a 'true' conservative? Believe in what you think is right, not what fits in some convenient label.
I agree completely.
Just pointing out the fallacy of claiming pro-life is a conservative ideal.
Laxative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHow does one 'force' a natural function of the human body?
So... the State shouldn't get involved in cases of homicide?If a woman wants to have an abortion, or keep her baby to term, that's her business. Certainly not the business of the government to become involved in. Personally, I could never abort my unborn child. I could never kill my baby growing inside my womb.
my name is masquerade and I am a conservative who is pro-choice.
