Trial offers a peek into the world of limitless abortion

[Luddly Neddite]

Not to trivilize it, but when the anti-choice folks essentially terrorize physicians who perform abortions at facilities, as opposed to regular old obgyn's who discreetly treat our daughters who have insurance, I have difficulty in accepting their complaints about "oh the treatment is horrible." Yes, and w/o Roe it would be even worse.

They're no different from the Westboro assholes.

 

[turzovka]

Scum Santorum is one of the worst for bible thumping -

Should his wife have been able to get a safe and legal abortion?

No, she should not.

Should you be able to make sense in posting? Yes, why not try?


Mrs Santorum's past is totally irrelevant to whatever point you are trying to make.

 

[hazlnut]

That's exactly how the radical right sees women. They are owned and should be controlled. You have no right to say what a woman does with her own body any more than I should have control over YOUR body.



That's really a silly thing to say and you really have nothing with which to back it up.

There are a lot of us who voted for a liberal and got a moderate.

Maybe you've forgotten that abortion is the law of the land.

The law of the land also used to allow slavery.

I guess if its "the law", then its perfectly moral.

If the topic is the "morality" of abortions then everyone who is anti-abortion should also be pro universal background checks for the simple reason that guns "abort" the lives of small children. 20 small innocent children's lives were "aborted" in a manner and a timeframe that not even Gosnell could emulate.

You're asking alot of these people. They just don't think that way...you know, logically.

 

[Bfgrn]

"
Mainstream media and especially pro-abortion liberal opinionists are desperate to control the narrative on the horrific abortionist, Kermit Gosnell.

Dummy.

Get this through your dumb thick head. No one is pro-abortion.

No one wants more abortions. (Though, if some drunk dope planted his seed in you, the world might be better off... know what I mean?)

But you can keep your baby with your idiot genes. That's freedom, dummy. We let people like you have babies or terminate your pregnancy if you want to spare us all a jr you.

For the most part I agree with you in regards to no one wanting more abortions. The exceptions being the psychopathic killers of the world like Kermit Grosnell, the administrators of Planned Parenthood and the leaders of organizations such as NOW and Naral Pro-Choice America.

Immie

Hey Immie, do you have any proof the administrators of Planned Parenthood and the leaders of organizations such as NOW and Naral Pro-Choice America want more abortions?

All of these organizations believe in reducing the need for abortion. This means support for improving access to birth control and teaching young people comprehensive sex education.

 

[turzovka]

The law of the land also used to allow slavery.

I guess if its "the law", then its perfectly moral.

If the topic is the "morality" of abortions then everyone who is anti-abortion should also be pro universal background checks for the simple reason that guns "abort" the lives of small children. 20 small innocent children's lives were "aborted" in a manner and a timeframe that not even Gosnell could emulate.

You're asking alot of these people. They just don't think that way...you know, logically.

It's not logical I should engage a strange duck, but I will anyway.

Question: Are people who deny the evidence for the Judeo Christian God being logical? Do you deny it?

You can also tell your kooky friend, derideo, that most people are strongly in favor of background checks. But his ridiculous analogy that allowing guns is tantamount to being favor of abortion is a rather deranged argument, if you can even call it that.

 

[turzovka]

Scum Santorum is one of the worst for bible thumping -

Should his wife have been able to get a safe and legal abortion?

No, she should not.

Should you be able to make sense in posting? Yes, why not try?


Mrs Santorum's past is totally irrelevant to whatever point you are trying to make.

Bible thumping scum Santorum agrees with you - that our government should have power to control our citizens. BUT, his wife did have an abortion. Apparently that was okay with bible thumping scum santorum.

Not unreasonable to wonder if you were the same kind of hypocrite as bible thumping scum santorum or if you're a different kind.

What is irrelevant is that you or anyone else believes you should be able to control women's reproduction. Next, you'll want close circuit TV in people's bedrooms and I'll bet you'd want the job of monitoring intimate behavior.

At its most basic, this is simply none of your business.

I have no misconceptions that I or this nation can overcome the lies you spew, but that does not mean it still does not nauseate me.

Neither you nor any women has the right to kill a baby. And yet you are telling me about control. Question: Do you think God has a strong opinion on this? Or don't you care?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the topic is the "morality" of abortions then everyone who is anti-abortion should also be pro universal background checks for the simple reason that guns "abort" the lives of small children. 20 small innocent children's lives were "aborted" in a manner and a timeframe that not even Gosnell could emulate.

You're asking alot of these people. They just don't think that way...you know, logically.

It's not logical I should engage a strange duck, but I will anyway.

Question: Are people who deny the evidence for the Judeo Christian God being logical? Do you deny it?

What "evidence" do you have to offer?

You can also tell your kooky friend, derideo, that most people are strongly in favor of background checks. But his ridiculous analogy that allowing guns is tantamount to being favor of abortion is a rather deranged argument, if you can even call it that.

Perhaps you should try rereading what was actually posted.

 

[hazlnut]

Scum Santorum is one of the worst for bible thumping -

Should his wife have been able to get a safe and legal abortion?

No, she should not.

Should you be able to make sense in posting? Yes, why not try?


Mrs Santorum's past is totally irrelevant to whatever point you are trying to make.

Bible thumping scum Santorum agrees with you - that our government should have power to control our citizens. BUT, his wife did have an abortion. Apparently that was okay with bible thumping scum santorum.

The pro-life fanatics never want to talk about quality of life issues. Babies are born and suffer horrible birth defects and then die soon after birth.

In 2008 at the age of 48, Karen Garver Santorum gave birth to her eighth child, Isabella, who was diagnosed with Edwards syndrome (Trisomy 18), a serious genetic disorder, with only a 10% chance of survival past one year old.

The Santorums knew there was going to be serious genetic complications, doctors explained the severity of Edwards and Downs syndrome, but they went ahead and had the baby.

Children born with Edwards syndrome may have some or all of the following characteristics: kidney malformations, structural heart defects at birth (i.e., ventricular septal defect, atrial septal defect, patent ductus arteriosus), intestines protruding outside the body (omphalocele), esophageal atresia, mental retardation, developmental delays, growth deficiency, feeding difficulties, breathing difficulties, and arthrogryposis (a muscle disorder that causes multiple joint contractures at birth).

Some physical malformations associated with Edwards syndrome include small head (microcephaly) accompanied by a prominent back portion of the head (occiput); low-set, malformed ears; abnormally small jaw (micrognathia); cleft lip/cleft palate; upturned nose; narrow eyelid folds (palpebral fissures); widely spaced eyes (ocular hypertelorism); drooping of the upper eyelids (ptosis); a short breast bone; clenched hands; choroid plexus cysts; underdeveloped thumbs and or nails, absent radius, webbing of the second and third toes; clubfoot or Rocker bottom feet; and in males, undescended testicles.

Every parent should have the right to consider quality of life issues when they are faced with a serious prenatal diagnosis.


People like Santorum and Palin like to have their political props.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, she should not.

Should you be able to make sense in posting? Yes, why not try?


Mrs Santorum's past is totally irrelevant to whatever point you are trying to make.

Bible thumping scum Santorum agrees with you - that our government should have power to control our citizens. BUT, his wife did have an abortion. Apparently that was okay with bible thumping scum santorum.

Not unreasonable to wonder if you were the same kind of hypocrite as bible thumping scum santorum or if you're a different kind.

What is irrelevant is that you or anyone else believes you should be able to control women's reproduction. Next, you'll want close circuit TV in people's bedrooms and I'll bet you'd want the job of monitoring intimate behavior.

At its most basic, this is simply none of your business.

I have no misconceptions that I or this nation can overcome the lies you spew, but that does not mean it still does not nauseate me.

Neither you nor any women has the right to kill a baby. And yet you are telling me about control. Question: Do you think God has a strong opinion on this? Or don't you care?

If you are referring to the bible God then yes, he does. He is all in favor of them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, she should not.

Should you be able to make sense in posting? Yes, why not try?


Mrs Santorum's past is totally irrelevant to whatever point you are trying to make.

Bible thumping scum Santorum agrees with you - that our government should have power to control our citizens. BUT, his wife did have an abortion. Apparently that was okay with bible thumping scum santorum.

The pro-life fanatics never want to talk about quality of life issues. Babies are born and suffer horrible birth defects and then die soon after birth.

In 2008 at the age of 48, Karen Garver Santorum gave birth to her eighth child, Isabella, who was diagnosed with Edwards syndrome (Trisomy 18), a serious genetic disorder, with only a 10% chance of survival past one year old.

The Santorums knew there was going to be serious genetic complications, doctors explained the severity of Edwards and Downs syndrome, but they went ahead and had the baby.

Children born with Edwards syndrome may have some or all of the following characteristics: kidney malformations, structural heart defects at birth (i.e., ventricular septal defect, atrial septal defect, patent ductus arteriosus), intestines protruding outside the body (omphalocele), esophageal atresia, mental retardation, developmental delays, growth deficiency, feeding difficulties, breathing difficulties, and arthrogryposis (a muscle disorder that causes multiple joint contractures at birth).

Some physical malformations associated with Edwards syndrome include small head (microcephaly) accompanied by a prominent back portion of the head (occiput); low-set, malformed ears; abnormally small jaw (micrognathia); cleft lip/cleft palate; upturned nose; narrow eyelid folds (palpebral fissures); widely spaced eyes (ocular hypertelorism); drooping of the upper eyelids (ptosis); a short breast bone; clenched hands; choroid plexus cysts; underdeveloped thumbs and or nails, absent radius, webbing of the second and third toes; clubfoot or Rocker bottom feet; and in males, undescended testicles.

Every parent should have the right to consider quality of life issues when they are faced with a serious prenatal diagnosis.


People like Santorum and Palin like to have their political props.

First, it was nothing short of despicable that both Palin and Santorum used their malformed children to get votes. Those two are the lowest of the low.

The anti-freedom fanatics are okay with children being molested by priests, starved by R politicians taking away food stamps and/or school lunches and they just love hitting kids in order to teach them how to behave. They believe its okay to beat children, starve them and molest them just as long as you give birth to them first.

In short, they hate children but by gawd, they do love those fetuses.

 

[Dot Com]

"
Mainstream media and especially pro-abortion liberal opinionists are desperate to control the narrative on the horrific abortionist, Kermit Gosnell.

Dummy.

Get this through your dumb thick head. No one is pro-abortion.

No one wants more abortions. (Though, if some drunk dope planted his seed in you, the world might be better off... know what I mean?)

But you can keep your baby with your idiot genes. That's freedom, dummy. We let people like you have babies or terminate your pregnancy if you want to spare us all a jr you.

^that!!!

 

[koshergrl]

That's right..because the baby killers believe if you are insensitive enough to give birth to what they consider a "monster", unworthy of life, you'd damn better well hide that little shit where they don't ever have to look at it.

 

[koshergrl]

The nazis felt the same, btw. Progressives just can't hide who they really are, no matter what decade they're crawling around in.

 

[theHawk]

That's exactly how the radical right sees women. They are owned and should be controlled. You have no right to say what a woman does with her own body any more than I should have control over YOUR body.



That's really a silly thing to say and you really have nothing with which to back it up.

There are a lot of us who voted for a liberal and got a moderate.

Maybe you've forgotten that abortion is the law of the land.

The law of the land also used to allow slavery.

I guess if its "the law", then its perfectly moral.

If the topic is the "morality" of abortions then everyone who is anti-abortion should also be pro universal background checks for the simple reason that guns "abort" the lives of small children. 20 small innocent children's lives were "aborted" in a manner and a timeframe that not even Gosnell could emulate.

I'm not entirely opposed to universal back ground checks, but I just think it would make a lot more sense to lock people up behind bars if they are so dangerous they can't be trusted with owning a firearm.

Fix the real problem: violent criminals being let out of jail, and mentally ill not being in a mental hospital. Then we wouldn't need any "background checks".

But that kind of logic seems to elude libs.

 

[theHawk]

First, it was nothing short of despicable that both Palin and Santorum used their malformed children to get votes. Those two are the lowest of the low.

The anti-freedom fanatics are okay with children being molested by priests, starved by R politicians taking away food stamps and/or school lunches and they just love hitting kids in order to teach them how to behave. They believe its okay to beat children, starve them and molest them just as long as you give birth to them first.

In short, they hate children but by gawd, they do love those fetuses.

Poor Luddy, in full nuclear meltdown.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you have any other source besides an obviously biased site, KG? You cannot possibly believe that an anti abortion website would be reporting the whole truth, do you?

Do you have any proof that they aren't?

 

[Cecilie1200]

In case you haven't noticed, PP doesn't provide real information and the mainstream media does not cover this subject. But the piece references sources, and you can check those.

Meawhile, what, exactly, do you contest? Or do you just assume that anyone who doesn't gush with enthusiasm for abortion is necessarily making stuff up, like PP does?

I consent everything that LifeSiteNews says. They are anti abortion, of course they will skew things to suit their agenda.

Well, then, it should be easy for you to tell us exactly HOW they are "skewing" things, and what the actual truth is, shouldn't it?

I shall breathlessly await your doing so.

 

[Noomi]

Do you have any other source besides an obviously biased site, KG? You cannot possibly believe that an anti abortion website would be reporting the whole truth, do you?

Do you have any proof that they aren't?

Umm, the entire website is full of emotive crap, so yes.

 

[Noomi]

In case you haven't noticed, PP doesn't provide real information and the mainstream media does not cover this subject. But the piece references sources, and you can check those.

Meawhile, what, exactly, do you contest? Or do you just assume that anyone who doesn't gush with enthusiasm for abortion is necessarily making stuff up, like PP does?

I consent everything that LifeSiteNews says. They are anti abortion, of course they will skew things to suit their agenda.

Well, then, it should be easy for you to tell us exactly HOW they are "skewing" things, and what the actual truth is, shouldn't it?

I shall breathlessly await your doing so.

They need to respect the law and stop claiming that abortion causes mental illness and breast cancer, for a start.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The law of the land also used to allow slavery.

I guess if its "the law", then its perfectly moral.

If the topic is the "morality" of abortions then everyone who is anti-abortion should also be pro universal background checks for the simple reason that guns "abort" the lives of small children. 20 small innocent children's lives were "aborted" in a manner and a timeframe that not even Gosnell could emulate.

I'm not entirely opposed to universal back ground checks, but I just think it would make a lot more sense to lock people up behind bars if they are so dangerous they can't be trusted with owning a firearm.

Fix the real problem: violent criminals being let out of jail, and mentally ill not being in a mental hospital. Then we wouldn't need any "background checks".

But that kind of logic seems to elude libs.

We are in danger of wandering off topic here but there is a need to check the record and look at sane solutions. It was under the Reagan administration that the mentally ill were "freed" from mental institutions given that he slashed their funding. (He was not alone in this but he was instrumental.) Secondly violent criminals are freed to make room for non violent pot smokers which suits the Prison-Industrial-Complex to a tee. It is much cheaper to house non-violent inmates. It was Nixon who started the phony War On Drugs and we are still paying the price. So to address your points you need to support legalizing marijuana which will free up room in prisons for violent offenders and funding to care for the mentally ill. If you want to take this any further we will need to start another thread.

So abortion is legal, pot smoking is illegal and violent and crazy people are allowed to own guns. The use of universal background checks will resolve the latter problem while legalizing pot will solve the 2nd.

So where do you want to go as far as abortion is concerned? Should it be legal or illegal?