Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Blood on the hands of pro-abortionists... "deal with it"


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

#106 Captroop

Captroop

    Pronounced, "Cat Poop"

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,770 posts
  • LocationNot Telling... CatofWar might find me.

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:05 AM

Of course we should talk about it. WE ARE THE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION. It is on us to decide what is right.


No it's not. Because there is no universal right. What you think is right is not what I think is right. What you are really saying is "we should try to get things more in my line of thinking" which by definition is going to make things worse for other people whose blood is a red as yours, who are as American as you, and whose opinion matters exactly as much.

Politicians aren't "railroading society," they're finding a relative compromise. If you notice that the legislation is on hypothetical railroad tracks, that just means the train is going in a direction you don't like.

And of all the social debates, abortion and gay marriage are the silliest because more than any other they are about trying to force people to adhere to YOUR way of thinking. (FYI, I thought it was cute that you chalk up a dissenting opinion to blind adherence to liberalism, when conversely you think people should blindly agree with your worldview). There are already choices on the board that allow you to have your way:

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Those are choices. Those God-forsaken Liberals have created a scenario where people with differing opinions have options they can choose that align with their perspective and moral imperative. But conservatives aren't happy until the only choice is the choice they like. That's why there shouldn't be a discussion. Because any discussion that effects change, is effectively taking away the right of the people to come to a decision on their own, based on their opinions, morals, experiences, and unique determining factors based on their place in life.

No. if you enact laws that take away the right of choice, and force you to make personal decisions that adhere to what is written in the law, THAT is being "railroaded."

#107 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:42 PM

But it is to yours?
So you are saying that 20 weeks is okay for abortion to happen, even though you said earlier that it should not be allowed after proven viability outside of the womb.

That is a contradiction. Viability outside of the womb happens before 20 weeks.


I would like to see your sources RE: 17 years, because other (admittedly internet-based sources) suggest that no child has survived earlier than 20 weeks. The two earliest preterm births are James Elgin Gill (128 days) and Amilia Taylor (129 days) (see http://en.wikipedia...._preterm_births, http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6384621.stm). Note that babies born this early have extremely low chances of survival, though I disagree that means they should be denied treatment.

#108 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,092 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:44 PM

That is exactly the mindset that allows politicians and extremists organizations to railroad society. Of course we should talk about it. WE ARE THE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION. It is on us to decide what is right. Plenty of laws have been written that never should or that were outright heinous. The legality of a thing has nothing to do with its morality. And a cultural morality must be addressed by the people who it affects not the elected officials charged with enforcing it.


You are correct in your analysis, but Roe vs Wade is not one of those laws. It's the best that could have been come up with to provide legal guidelines for a difficult question.

But you do hit it on the head in your last sentence which everyone with an honest opinion agrees with - the people it affects need to make the decision, and Roe vs Wade allows for that while maintaining some enforceable legal boundries.

#109 LiQuiD

LiQuiD

    Plumb Crazy

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,256 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:57 PM

My questions remain thus:

Is it better for an unwanted child to be born into that (unwanted) situation, maybe where it cannot be cared for properly or won't be?

If it is destined to be abused or starved, is that better than a termination of that pregnancy? How far do the parents go to support the child at the expense of others? Robbery/burglary? More?

What's the mental and physical cost to the child? Will that child become a menace to society and the 'saving' of its life cause the death of others?

Don't fool yourselves into thinking the "system" can properly care for these children when they are born into such conditions.

#110 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 19,728 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:10 PM

has this been posted? the atlantic has an interesting piece floating around about this

#111 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,511 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:03 AM

has this been posted? the atlantic has an interesting piece floating around about this

Just horrifying.

#112 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,440 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:39 AM

Don't like abortions? Don't get one. That should be the end of it. Stop trying to meddle in the lives of others based on your own world view.


This.
I'm pro-choice.

#113 Donald LaFell

Donald LaFell

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,785 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 11:31 AM

Licks fingers..


are you Jake Delhome?

#114 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:08 PM

I would like to see your sources RE: 17 years, because other (admittedly internet-based sources) suggest that no child has survived earlier than 20 weeks. The two earliest preterm births are James Elgin Gill (128 days) and Amilia Taylor (129 days) (see http://en.wikipedia...._preterm_births, http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6384621.stm). Note that babies born this early have extremely low chances of survival, though I disagree that means they should be denied treatment.



see pic (also posted earlier)Attached File  fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg   147.27KB   3 downloads

also I am neither Dem nor Rep, Liberal, Conserv, or Green or anything else. But since you are likely liberal and if there is anything I know about liberals it is that they like to think they are smart and only deal in science fact. Well consider this. When guestimating the time a fetus can survive out of the womb, remember that the popular times floating around are completely arbitrary. 6 months about has been the limit of our medical technology for the previous hundred years or so. Heck, the only reason it takes 9 months to gestate a human is because for the first few million years of human evolution we didn't have intensive care units. However, recent technology when measured in a vacuum without outside influences of money, culture, insurance etc basically places no limit to at what age a person can be gestated without a woman, So that argument is shortsighted and no longer valid.

#115 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:27 PM



http://clinicquotes....describes-a-de/

In America, 12% of all abortions happen after 13 weeks (159,600 a year) Most of these are done by the D & E (Dilation/Dilitation and Evacuation) method.

Former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levantino describes this type of abortion:

“Imagine for a moment that you are a “pro-choice” obstetrician-gynecologist as I once was. Your patient today is seventeen years old and she is twenty weeks pregnant. At twenty weeks, her uterus is up to her umbilicus and she has been feeling her baby kick for the last two weeks. If you could see her baby, she would be as long as your hand from the top of her head to the bottom of her rump not counting the legs. Your patient is now asleep on an operating room table with her legs in stirrups. Upon entering the room after scrubbing, you dry your hands with a sterile towel and are gowned and gloved by the scrub nurse.

The first task is remove the laminaria that had earlier been placed in the cervix to dilate it sufficiently to allow the procedure you are about to perform. With that accomplished, direct your attention to the surgical instruments arranged on a small table to your right. The first instrument you reach for is a 14-French suction catheter. It is clear plastic and about nine inches long. It has a bore through the center approximately 3/4 of an inch in diameter. Picture yourself introducing the catheter through the cervix and instructing the circulating nurse to turn on the suction machine which is connected through clear plastic tubing to the catheter. What you will see is a pale yellow fluid the looks a lot like urine coming through the catheter into a glass bottle on the suction machine. This amniotic fluid surrounded the baby to protect her.

With suction complete, look for your Sopher clamp. This instrument is about thirteen inches long and made of stainless steel. At one end are located jaws about 2 inches long and about an an inch wide with rows of sharp ridges or teeth. This instrument is for grasping and crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does not let go.

A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can. At twenty weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4 to 5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.”

Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose. You just made $600 cash in fifteen minutes.


unborn baby at 20 weeks, at the typical age when this type of abortion is performed

Here is a diagram of the D&E procedure:

Attached File  abortion at 20 weeks.jpg   135.53KB   5 downloads

View actual pictures of a D & E abortion.

You’ve read about a D&E abortion, but did you know that even early abortions are gruesome? Abortions before 13 weeks are done by suction curettage if they are done surgically and by RU-486 if they’re done medically. Read more about RU-486 abortions in this section.

In a suction curettage abortion, the cervix is dilated and the unborn baby is torn apart via suction. Here is a diagram of this kind of procedure.

Attached File  early term abortion.jpg   58.9KB   5 downloads

my argument that there is a universal morality has been met with varying degrees of scorn. However although many of you will counter with excuses to override that fundamental sense of morality, you must recognize that you wouldn't need an excuse if it didn't bother you. It bothers you because it is wrong. Any immoral act can be rationalized, that doesn't change how they tear you up inside. The current law allows for this type of abortion to happen. Can anyone really look into their heart and say that this is okay in any definition of morality. Not talking about rationalized, im talking about in what sense of morality is this a good thing.










this is a picture of a baby at 20 weeks.
Attached File  unbornbaby20w-01.jpg   15.23KB   1 downloads As it is written now, the law gives the mother the right to decide if he will live or die.

#116 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:36 PM

if you insist on referring to a fetus at any stage of development as a "child", i'm going to insist that you believe that every miscarriage should be subject to a manslaughter investigation.


http://clinicquotes....describes-a-de/


my argument that there is a universal morality has been met with varying degrees of scorn. However although many of you will counter with excuses to override that fundamental sense of morality, you must recognize that you wouldn't need an excuse if it didn't bother you. It bothers you because it is wrong. Any immoral act can be rationalized, that doesn't change how they tear you up inside. The current law allows for this type of abortion to happen. Can anyone really look into their heart and say that this is okay in any definition of morality. Not talking about rationalized, im talking about in what sense of morality is this a good thing.










this is a picture of a baby at 20 weeks.
Attached File  unbornbaby20w-01.jpg   15.23KB   1 downloads As it is written now, the law gives the mother the right to decide if he will live or die.



#117 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:38 PM

I like when people say they aren't liberal or conservative but love applying those labels to others. A plus.

As to "science fact," I deal with current available evidence. I thought you had some other than an your own guesses so I was curious what it was, because I don't know everything on a subject and my limited research isn't always inclusive of things, so I was curious to hear what you might say.

You are basically making things up re: " recent technology when measured in a vacuum without outside influences of money, culture, insurance etc basically places no limit to at what age a person can be gestated without a woman, So that argument is shortsighted and no longer valid" and actually have no proof for this. There is 0 evidence that this is the case and quite a bit that is *completely* the opposite. Regardless of how the fetus looks inside it's mother, that is irrelevant to whether or not it could survive outside.

my argument that there is a universal morality has been met with varying degrees of scorn. However although many of you will counter with excuses to override that fundamental sense of morality, you must recognize that you wouldn't need an excuse if it didn't bother you. It bothers you because it is wrong. Any immoral act can be rationalized, that doesn't change how they tear you up inside. The current law allows for this type of abortion to happen. Can anyone really look into their heart and say that this is okay in any definition of morality. Not talking about rationalized, im talking about in what sense of morality is this a good thing.


I don't have excuses. I'm not going to tell another person what they can/can't do in regards to an abortion as long as it is currently covered under the law. I wouldn't want a woman I got pregnant to have one in the first place, but it's not really my choice.

I just wanted to figure out if you had other sources I didn't know about, but as it turns out, it was just your opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but for some reason you desired to state it as fact.

#118 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,336 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:47 PM

The question at the heart of the matter of abortion is "when does human life begin?" There is no one on the planet truly qualified to answer that question. It is why I am reluctantly pro-choice, myself. It is obviously immoral, but the law cannot confidently say when anyone becomes a person. It is for that same reason that state-supported abortions via planned parenthood, etc are FAR beyond he purview of the function of federal government. Compelling anyone to pay for such a thing against their will is an anathema to liberty... Especially when it comes to freedom of religion.

So while many people glibly say, "if you don't agree with abortions, don't have one," that is your right. It is every bit as much right for anyone else to say, "go fug yourself if you want me to pay for yours."

#119 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:49 PM

I like when people say they aren't liberal or conservative but love applying those labels to others. A plus.

As to "science fact," I deal with current available evidence. I thought you had some other than an your own guesses so I was curious what it was, because I don't know everything on a subject and my limited research isn't always inclusive of things, so I was curious to hear what you might say.

You are basically making things up re: " recent technology when measured in a vacuum without outside influences of money, culture, insurance etc basically places no limit to at what age a person can be gestated without a woman, So that argument is shortsighted and no longer valid" and actually have no proof for this. There is 0 evidence that this is the case and quite a bit that is *completely* the opposite. Regardless of how the fetus looks inside it's mother, that is irrelevant to whether or not it could survive outside.



I don't have excuses. I'm not going to tell another person what they can/can't do in regards to an abortion as long as it is currently covered under the law. I wouldn't want a woman I got pregnant to have one in the first place, but it's not really my choice.

I just wanted to figure out if you had other sources I didn't know about, but as it turns out, it was just your opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but for some reason you desired to state it as fact.


Attached File  fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg   147.27KB   10 downloads

http://www.mayoclini...NSECTIONGROUP=2

I am a humble person, so I will admit that the evidence I presented requires connections to be drawn that may not be obvious. Basically by any measure of fetal development that can be applied to its viability out of the womb can be applied before the 20th week. This is not my opinion. This is medical theory.

edit: Also I said could, not has. "Evidence suggests" These terms are common and completely acceptable when debating. It usually leads to the other person reinterpreting the evidence, of which I am still waiting.

#120 stankowalski

stankowalski

    A Hard Walker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,668 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:51 PM

He performed illegal, late-term abortions and when the babies were born alive, he would sever their spinal cords to kill them, prosecutors have claimed over the four-week trial.Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2Q08azFqg Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Are you a troll or really this stupid? He killed live born babies. That's illegal and one of the reasons he on trial. Wtf are you talking about?

If anyone deserves the death penalty, it's this guy. Seriously, how could you sleep at night doing this sort of work?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com