_dmp_
Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 854
- 7
- 16
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
These sickos need a place in hell right next to Utility Company execs & Trail Attnys
- Thread starter _dmp_
- Start date
Originally posted by dmp
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115465,00.html
They want THIS legalized...
In a November 14, 2003 column titled, "Partial-birth Abortion Law Paints Bleak Picture", Ellen Goodman set the tone by quoting that moral giant, Bill Clinton: "I want abortion to be safe and rare".
This is absolute gibberish. If abortion is not, in and of itself, morally reprehensible, then who cares if it's rare or not? (It's not rare. There are 1.5 million abortions annually in the US, 80% of which are obtained for the sake of personal convenience *). But then, pro-abortion rhetoric has always been disingenuous and misleading. The viewpoint cannot withstand rational discussion; therefore, the concept of rationality itself is dismissed as merely another tool, used by the oppressive patriarchy, to wipe out the "gains" women have made.
If I may, I'd like to counter some of Ellen Goodman's nonsense with a little bit of straight talk about partial-birth abortion.
First, let's disabuse ourselves of the notion, advanced by the defenders of the procedure, that the baby doesn't feel any pain. Physicians the world over agree that, in order to effectively numb a late-term infant in the womb, you'd have to pump enough anesthetic into the mother to kill her.
Second, even if this weren't the case, so what? Anyone heard saying, "The use of Zyklon-B cyanide gas by the Nazis provided six million European Jews with relatively painless death" would be denounced as a sadistic crackpot. What a pity that innocent, helpless children don't seem to merit the same consideration.
Finally, though, the howling indecency of the partial-birth abortion debate is that it's proponents have conveniently forgotten to tell us just why this obscene procedure has to be carried out in precisely the manner it is. I've heard some indistinct mumbling about "protecting the mother", but until recently, never knew exactly what the mother is being protected from. Danger to her health? Second thoughts? Remorse? None of the above.
What protection has been afforded-to whom-by this vile ritual of death? Simply this: The fact that the cold-blooded torture and murder of a sentient, living human being took place while it was still, technically, inside it's mother's body, protects both mother and abortionist from charges of infanticide. There is no other reason for using this procedure. Live birth could easily be accomplished at this point. Partial-birth abortion is nothing more than a legalistic tap dance around a hideous, unthinkable truth, and I defy anyone, anywhere to say otherwise.
"What a woman does with her own body is her business" is just not going to get it anymore. Civilized society has a stake in this, too. The relentless onslaught of vulgar barbarianism, the obliteration of any and all restraints on behavior, and the cheapening of human life are things that Americans, finally, are beginning to regard with some alarm. Perhaps the baby boom generation is, at long last, ready to grow up and stop this runaway train before it takes us all over the cliff.
Remember, aging baby boomer- the flip side of abortion is euthanasia. To quote Robert Bork: " Human beings tend to be inconvenient at both ends of their lives."
*A 1987 survey, conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute-incidentally, a staunchly pro-abortion group- bore that figure out.
This was an intensely embarrassing revelation for pro-abortion forces. Needless to say, no such figures have been publicized since-a fact which speaks volumes by itself. Additionally, the general direction in which America is being dragged by our cultural elite gives one scant reason to believe that that percentage has improved in the last seventeen years.
Bullypulpit
Senior Member
Originally posted by dmp
It's truth...if more ppl knew what PBA was...maybe more would be offended enough to call for an end to the practice.
Was the fetus aborted? Or was it the result of a miscariage? Questions which dmp's post conveniently ignore.
The truth is that partial birth abortions are not an elective proceedure in this country. It is used in the in the event of profound birht defects which the fetus will not survive after birth, or the life and health of the mother are endangered.
The vast majority of elective abortions are performed early in the first trimester when the fetus is barely enev recognizable as mammalian, let alone human.
_dmp_
Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 854
- 7
- 16
- Thread starter
- #6
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Was the fetus aborted? Or was it the result of a miscariage? Questions which dmp's post conveniently ignore.
The truth is that partial birth abortions are not an elective proceedure in this country. It is used in the in the event of profound birht defects which the fetus will not survive after birth, or the life and health of the mother are endangered.
The vast majority of elective abortions are performed early in the first trimester when the fetus is barely enev recognizable as mammalian, let alone human.
Are you a retard? The baby in the illustration is fake - it's an ILLUSTRATION...sound it out...the ILLUSTRATION shows the procedure for what is known as a PARTIAL-BIRTH Abortion. The photo of a baby shows the approximate size of a baby when these procedures are performed. Show me your 'truth'...I think you are full of shit.
There is NO reason to end the life of a baby. Especially like this.Have a nice day!
B
badfish
Guest
Originally posted by dmp
It's truth...if more ppl knew what PBA was...maybe more would be offended enough to call for an end to the practice.
Still. Come on man... I'm sitting in my cubicle drinking coffee and eating donut holes. Now I'm going to have to be twice as cranky as I was planning on being today.
Bullypulpit
Senior Member
Originally posted by dmp
Are you a retard? The baby in the illustration is fake - it's an ILLUSTRATION...sound it out...the ILLUSTRATION shows the procedure for what is known as a PARTIAL-BIRTH Abortion. The photo of a baby shows the approximate size of a baby when these procedures are performed. Show me your 'truth'...I think you are full of shit.
Have a nice day!
Talk to me whan you have some understanding of medicine beyond what you've seen on reruns of "E.R."
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Was the fetus aborted? Or was it the result of a miscariage? Questions which dmp's post conveniently ignore.
The truth is that partial birth abortions are not an elective proceedure in this country. It is used in the in the event of profound birht defects which the fetus will not survive after birth, or the life and health of the mother are endangered.
The vast majority of elective abortions are performed early in the first trimester when the fetus is barely enev recognizable as mammalian, let alone human.
"Partial-birth abortions are not an elective procedure in this country".
Would you be comfortable in amending that statement to read, "Partial-birth abortions are never an elective procedure...."
In like manner,"It is used in the event of profound birth defects....", to, "It is used only in the event of profound birth defects....".
As to, "The life and health of the mother are endangered....", During a partial-birth abortion, the baby's entire body, except for it's head, is delivered. Live birth could easily be accomplished at this point. Would you mind telling me what imaginable health risk is imposed upon the mother by delivering the baby's head-dandruff?
The gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion is carried out in a specific manner, for a specific reason. Murdering the baby while it is still, technically, inside it's mother's body, protects both abortionist and mother from charges of infanticide. There is no other reason for this procedure. Tell me I'm wrong.
I realize that it is the duty of liberals to come to the defense of the "cause du jour", but I sure as hell don't envy you on this one.
Bullypulpit
Senior Member
Originally posted by dmp
why? who are you? What makes you so educated in Medicine? Why are you side tracking?
I love E.R. btw...
I'm an RN. I've worked in the ER, ICU. As jimnyc is so fond of saying, I "clean up piss" for a living.
Bullypulpit
Senior Member
No, it's not a birth.
By William Saletan
<blockquote>I'm no fan of second-trimester abortions. They're horrible, and if you can avoid having one, you should. They can be particularly disturbing when they're done by extracting the fetus intact, in a manner that looks like birth. But they aren't births...
...That's just false. This procedure doesn't take place anywhere near the appointed hour of birth. If you paid close attention to the Senate debate, you might have noticed the part where Santorum said the procedure was performed "at least 20 weeks, and in many cases, 21, 22, 23, 24 weeks [into pregnancy], and in rarer cases, beyond that." He didn't clarify how many of these abortions took place past the 20th week. A full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks...
...If you haven't been following the debate closely, it's easy to walk away with the impression that the "delivery" is a nearly full-term birth, as the bill's name implies. It's easy to say yes when a pollster asks you whether you favor a "law to make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as 'partial-birth abortion,' except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother." That's the question the Gallup organization asked in January. Based on responses to that question, USA Today reports this morning that the poll "showed that 70% of Americans back the ban."
I'd like to know how many of the people who answered that question understood exactly what they were being asked about.</blockquote>
I'm no fan of second trimester abortions either. But to classify dilation and extraction as a "partial birth" is a canard. When these proceedures are done, the fetus is either not going to survive to term due to defects or the mothers health is jeopardized.
The so-called "Pro-Life" movement makes the error of equating the potential, as expressed by the fetus, with the actual as expressed by the life of the mother. The mother's life trumps that of a non-viable fetus.
By William Saletan
<blockquote>I'm no fan of second-trimester abortions. They're horrible, and if you can avoid having one, you should. They can be particularly disturbing when they're done by extracting the fetus intact, in a manner that looks like birth. But they aren't births...
...That's just false. This procedure doesn't take place anywhere near the appointed hour of birth. If you paid close attention to the Senate debate, you might have noticed the part where Santorum said the procedure was performed "at least 20 weeks, and in many cases, 21, 22, 23, 24 weeks [into pregnancy], and in rarer cases, beyond that." He didn't clarify how many of these abortions took place past the 20th week. A full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks...
...If you haven't been following the debate closely, it's easy to walk away with the impression that the "delivery" is a nearly full-term birth, as the bill's name implies. It's easy to say yes when a pollster asks you whether you favor a "law to make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as 'partial-birth abortion,' except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother." That's the question the Gallup organization asked in January. Based on responses to that question, USA Today reports this morning that the poll "showed that 70% of Americans back the ban."
I'd like to know how many of the people who answered that question understood exactly what they were being asked about.</blockquote>
I'm no fan of second trimester abortions either. But to classify dilation and extraction as a "partial birth" is a canard. When these proceedures are done, the fetus is either not going to survive to term due to defects or the mothers health is jeopardized.
The so-called "Pro-Life" movement makes the error of equating the potential, as expressed by the fetus, with the actual as expressed by the life of the mother. The mother's life trumps that of a non-viable fetus.
Bullypulpit
Senior Member
Myth: Abortion bans prohibit only abortions performed late in pregnancy.
Fact: Abortion bans prohibit abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy.
Arent abortion bans late-term bans?
No. When the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraskas abortion ban, it did so in part because it found the bans language encompassed the most common method of second-trimester abortion.
Dont abortion bans apply only to a particular stage of pregnancy?
No. Of the more than 30 bans enacted since 1995, only three refer to any particular stage of pregnancy. All the others apply throughout pregnancy.
Myth: Abortion bans target only one particular abortion procedure.
Fact: Abortion bans prohibit an array of safe abortion procedures performed throughout pregnancy.
Isnt partial-birth abortion an actual medical procedure?
No. The term partial-birth abortion is not a medical term and it does not identify any particular abortion procedure.
Dont abortion bans target only D&X abortions?
No. When the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's abortion ban, it did so in part because it found the law banned the most common method of second-trimester abortion, D&E.
Myth: Abortion bans wont harm womens health.
Fact: Abortion bans gravely endanger womens health.
Dont the bans have exceptions to protect womens health?
No. Almost all the bans have no health exception whatsoever and only a dangerously inadequate exception to save a womans life.
Isnt a health exception unnecessary?
No. When the Supreme Court struck down Nebraskas ban, it did so in part because the ban failed to include a health exception. The Court has long held that laws restricting abortion access must contain an exception to protect womens health.
Myth: Abortion bans are necessary to prevent elective abortions late in pregnancy.
Fact: Abortion bans are not confined to any stage of pregnancy, and third-trimester abortions are not elective.
Dont women seek elective third-trimester abortions?
No. Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake.
Myth: Congress drafted the Federal Abortion Ban so that it reaches only one procedure and safeguards womens health.
Fact: The Federal Abortion Ban is still a broad and dangerous ban.
Isnt the federal ban limited to abortions performed late in pregnancy?
No. The ban prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy.
Doesn't the federal ban target one procedure?
No. Far from describing one discrete abortion procedure, the bans definition, like that in the Nebraska law, sets forth steps that physicians take routinely in performing a variety of safe abortion procedures used as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy.
Doesnt federal ban have an exception to protect womens health?
No. Contrary to the Supreme Court ruling that a law restricting womens access to abortion must contain a health exception, the federal ban lacks any exception.
Fact: Abortion bans prohibit abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy.
Arent abortion bans late-term bans?
No. When the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraskas abortion ban, it did so in part because it found the bans language encompassed the most common method of second-trimester abortion.
Dont abortion bans apply only to a particular stage of pregnancy?
No. Of the more than 30 bans enacted since 1995, only three refer to any particular stage of pregnancy. All the others apply throughout pregnancy.
Myth: Abortion bans target only one particular abortion procedure.
Fact: Abortion bans prohibit an array of safe abortion procedures performed throughout pregnancy.
Isnt partial-birth abortion an actual medical procedure?
No. The term partial-birth abortion is not a medical term and it does not identify any particular abortion procedure.
Dont abortion bans target only D&X abortions?
No. When the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's abortion ban, it did so in part because it found the law banned the most common method of second-trimester abortion, D&E.
Myth: Abortion bans wont harm womens health.
Fact: Abortion bans gravely endanger womens health.
Dont the bans have exceptions to protect womens health?
No. Almost all the bans have no health exception whatsoever and only a dangerously inadequate exception to save a womans life.
Isnt a health exception unnecessary?
No. When the Supreme Court struck down Nebraskas ban, it did so in part because the ban failed to include a health exception. The Court has long held that laws restricting abortion access must contain an exception to protect womens health.
Myth: Abortion bans are necessary to prevent elective abortions late in pregnancy.
Fact: Abortion bans are not confined to any stage of pregnancy, and third-trimester abortions are not elective.
Dont women seek elective third-trimester abortions?
No. Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake.
Myth: Congress drafted the Federal Abortion Ban so that it reaches only one procedure and safeguards womens health.
Fact: The Federal Abortion Ban is still a broad and dangerous ban.
Isnt the federal ban limited to abortions performed late in pregnancy?
No. The ban prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy.
Doesn't the federal ban target one procedure?
No. Far from describing one discrete abortion procedure, the bans definition, like that in the Nebraska law, sets forth steps that physicians take routinely in performing a variety of safe abortion procedures used as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy.
Doesnt federal ban have an exception to protect womens health?
No. Contrary to the Supreme Court ruling that a law restricting womens access to abortion must contain a health exception, the federal ban lacks any exception.
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I'm an RN. I've worked in the ER, ICU. As jimnyc is so fond of saying, I "clean up piss" for a living.
And yet you still love me!
Bullypulpit
Senior Member
DKSuddeth
Senior Member
it should only be done if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
I know the anti abortion crowd would like to see ALL abortion done away with but seriously, if you can't make up your mind in the first three months to have the baby or not, tough. You should be unceremoniously stuck with the last 6. after that, use adoption.
I know the anti abortion crowd would like to see ALL abortion done away with but seriously, if you can't make up your mind in the first three months to have the baby or not, tough. You should be unceremoniously stuck with the last 6. after that, use adoption.
U
Unknown
Guest
I say for people that choose to have an abortion, let them see the baby after it's dead. That way they can remember it for life.
_dmp_
Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 854
- 7
- 16
- Thread starter
- #18
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I'm an RN. I've worked in the ER, ICU. As jimnyc is so fond of saying, I "clean up piss" for a living.
You are a woman?
wow.
Nice to meet you, Focker.
What in RN training allows you to be an authority on Abortion? I've been to a lot of ERs...not much going on. Because I work for the Army doesn't give me insights on Naval proceedures.
rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 513
- 48
- Banned
- #19
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Was the fetus aborted? Or was it the result of a miscariage? Questions which dmp's post conveniently ignore.
The truth is that partial birth abortions are not an elective proceedure in this country. It is used in the in the event of profound birht defects which the fetus will not survive after birth, or the life and health of the mother are endangered.
The vast majority of elective abortions are performed early in the first trimester when the fetus is barely enev recognizable as mammalian, let alone human.
You're a flaming fucktard.
U
Unknown
Guest
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You're a flaming fucktard.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 394
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 324
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 185
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 123
- Views
- 961
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 319
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 16
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 242
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 9254
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 497
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-