Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Yes I totally agree!!

JoyV

[quote=Morgan][quote=JoyV]If it were only human tissue it would not be a crime to use it in medical research. While SCOTUS has ruled a******n legal, the law still treats the remains as a human being--not just human tissue. Why is that? The law also treats the loss of a pregnancy due to violence against the mother as a crime separate from the crime of assault on her or murder of her. Again; the law seems to be conflicted about whether what is growing inside a pregnant woman is a human being or a mass of tissue. If a person is assaulted and a person loses their spleen to the assault, the attacker is not charged with two crimes of assault and murder or manslaughter.[/quote

Our laws cannot step beyond the rights of an individual, this is why they confirm the rights of the child once it is born and separate from the mother. That's all it can do and should do in the parameters of the law. The rights of the child come with birth.

More to the point the government cannot and should not possess the moral judgment of the woman, that is hers alone along with to develop a child or not. Haven't they already put a term limit on being able to have an a******n?

The politicians are only using this issue as an emotional subterfuge for the v**e.[/quote]

"...that is hers alone along with to develop a child or not."

So if a woman no longer wants to provide the nourishment and shelter to a 6 month old baby, it should be her right to cease caring for it and allowing it to die? Or simply k**l it? What is the difference if the termination is done before or after a breath is drawn (which is the legal definition of a live birth.) Both before and after the baby needs extensive care. A baby cannot feed itself or take care of itself. While the baby is in the womb the woman provides for her baby with her own body's protection, warmth, nourishment, and waste disposal. When out of the womb the mother must knowingly and intentionally provide those same services. In either case, without extensive care the baby will not survive. It is only the location of the baby which differs. A baby in the womb is not part of the woman's body. It is on life support through the placenta which is attached to her body, but has its own body with separate circulatory system and mind.

"Haven't they already put a term limit on being able to have an a******n?"

Not all states have term limits. And when the late term a******n limits are challenged in court, until the case is resolved there are no limits enforced. This means up until the moment of birth, an a******n may legally be done in those states. Many states have some limits. But not all. Only a couple of states restrict a******n earlier than 22 weeks. Seeing that brain activity can be detected between 4 to 6 weeks, and heart at 3 weeks; the evidence it is far more than a mass of differentiated cells within the first trimester is overwhelming.

JoyV

The Jim Crow laws were put in place by the people who were in favor of s***ery. The Democrats! Though they weren't all necessarily former s***e owners themselves. Many were poor w****s who felt their superiority over black s***es were threatened by the elimination of s***ery. In no way did they want the former s***es to be treated as equal to them.

So the same schools which have eliminated the teaching of our constitution, civics, and history; are teaching the T***H! Only in the latter part of the Civil War were there enough black troops to segregate them into their own companies. Up till, and even after, the Emancipation Proclamation, the black soldiers were too few in number to segregate. It was only after Frederick Douglass encouraged b****s to fight that numbers began to swell. By the end of the war, about 10% of the Union Army were black.

So maybe you should ask for a refund of your tuition if your school taught you that after the Republicans freed the s***es they instituted Jim Crow laws while the Democrat former s***e owners were accepting of free b****s having full e******y. But logic alone should have made you question such a scenario.

And by the way; I am not a Republican. But if my only choices were Democrat or Republican; I certainly would NOT choose Democrat!

JoyV

You better reread Roe v Wade. It does NOT forbid a******ns for any reason. And where did you find the figure of 85% of the time the mother's life is at risk? If the figure comes from PP, they are definitely not being honest. If she were really at risk, she should not be at a PP clinic instead of a hospital. PP clinics are not generally set up to dealing with life threatening situations. If PP were really performing a******ns for women in life threatening pregnancies; there would be a much higher mortality rate for the mothers even when done in a hospital setting.

Probably the most common life threatening condition where an a******n would save the mother's life is in an ectopic pregnancy. (1% to 2% of pregnancies in developed nations) I highly doubt 85% of women going to PP clinics suffer ectopic pregnancies. Another condition where an a******n will save the mother is a fast spreading uterine cancer. This is far rarer and highly unlikely to be safely dealt with at a PP clinic. I've included a couple of links on life threatening conditions in pregnancies.

https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/pregnancy-complications

https://www.babygaga.com/15-pregnancy-complications-that-are-fatal-for-mom/

Ricktloml

God indeed blessed you with the right decision. And one doesn't really even have to be religious to oppose a******n, only civilized. It is the most barbaric, savage, uncivilized act that ANYONE can perform. Many believe a women should be required to see an ultra-sound of her baby before making the decision to abort. I think a woman considering butchering her unborn child should see EXACTLY what an a******n entails. Most workers at a******n clinics actual throw up the first few times they have to reassemble an aborted baby on a tray to make sure they didn't leave any baby body parts behind in the mother that would cause infection. Any women considering an a******n should be given ALL the information about what an a******n actually is, not euphemisms designed to hide a******n's brutality

bahmer

Amen and Amen

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Non-since

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population

JoyV

NPR and fact checking is an oxymoron. And why do they disbelieve Sanger's own words implying they know better what she meant then she did herself.

**************************************************
Here are some Sanger quotes:

*We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population...
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939
*The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.
--Oct. 19, 1939; Mrs. Sanger's letter to Mr. Gamble for The Negro Project

*The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to k**l it.
-- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920)

*Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
--The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", October 1921, page 5.

*The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.
--The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", October 1921, page 5.

*As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.... On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", October 1921, page 5.

*The main objects of the Population Congress would be [...] (f) to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

*If plants, and live stock as well, require space and air, sunlight and love, children need them even more. The only real wealth of our country lies in the men and women of the next generation. A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts.
How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds.

*I care nothing for Free Speech in and by itself.

*I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.
-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366

*Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation ...
-- Sanger, Margaret. “My Way to Peace,” Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198.

***************************************

Years ago I watched an interview given by Sanger to Mike Wallace. I do not have the data availability to watch videos; but looked up the interview on youtube. I hope it is the entire interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4pwJas4En0

bahmer

She sure was a piece of work or something but pretty far from human in my opinion.
She is closer to animal in her feelings and thoughts than to human.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Let's not take one sentence out of context.

chapter 5 http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html

bahmer

Former A******nist Bernard Nathanson Became Pro-Life When He Saw Something Amazing
OPINION DAVE ANDRUSKO MAR 14, 2018 | 8:04AM WASHINGTON, DC
Our church, like many, sponsors missionaries. We have one in particular who is the kind of charismatic figure whose preaching someday will reach a vast audience.

We were exchanging emails and texts this week. We’d talked many times about how he chosen his path (or how it was chosen for him) but we’d never talked about those events many, many years ago which culminated with me throwing my lot in with the greatest movement for social justice of our times. He asked me about it.

We talked briefly. The following is a synopsis of my entry point into the movement which I had alluded to in years past. I offer it not because it is unique. In fact, in some ways my experience was typical, in other ways not so much, but in all ways (as is the case with many of you reading this post), it was a turning point in my life.

I was already an adult by the time of Roe v. Wade but in my innocence I had missed the decade-long battle over “a******n reform” that preceded the 1973 decision that demolished the a******n statutes of all 50 states.

My portal, so to speak, was a combination of a predisposition to protecting the unborn (I was the oldest of seven kids) and the soul-shocking impact of the video presentation and book, Wh**ever Happened to the Human Race? the classic work of former Surgeon General C. Everett Kopp and theologian Francis Schaeffer which awakened millions of Evangelical Christians.

Unbeknownst to me, in the mid-seventies I was being primed. Like tens of millions of others, I needed to be activated. Sitting in that Presbyterian Church in South Minneapolis, images from Wh**ever Happened to the Human Race? were seared into my memory.

But if my progression from sympathetic bystander to activist seems in retrospect almost inevitable, it is just as true that many of the most articulate, thoughtful pro-life champions started out just as “naturally” on the other side. By that I mean when you listen to their accounts, you understand that in the intellectual and cultural environments in which they were raised, talk of “sanctity of life” and “equal rights for unborn children” would be virtually unintelligible.

SUPPORT PRO-LIFE NEWS! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation to share the pro-life message in 2018

“Huh?” would often be their response.

Who do I have in mind? To take two examples—the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, author of “Aborting America” and producer of “The Silent Scream” video; and Pulitzer Prize winner Paul Greenberg, editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Greenberg wrote a typically eloquent op-ed when Dr. Nathanson died.

Paul keenly explained how Dr. Nathanson, by his own count, was “responsible” for over 75,000 a******ns (“His ideals were those of the enlightened, modern urban America of his time, which was the mid- to late 20th century”) and how he emerged from the darkness, thanks to the light of medical technology (initially the newest EKG and ultrasound imagery).

Paul writes how he could “identify” with Nathanson. He himself had bought into the soothing reassurances that Roe “was not blanket permission for a******n, but a carefully crafted, limited decision applicable only in some exceptional cases. Which was all a lot of hooey, but I swallowed it, and regurgitated it in editorials.”

I want you to read Paul’s column, so I will offer just this one quote:

“With a little verbal manipulation [verbicide], any crime can be rationalized, even promoted,” Greenberg writes. “The trick is to speak of fetuses, not unborn children. So long as the victims are a faceless abstraction, anything can be done to them.

“Just don’t look too closely at those sonograms. We are indeed strangely and wondrously made.”
Again you can read Paul’s column at Jewish World Review. The headline is very telling:

“The Doctor Who Saw What He Did”
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on a******n topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Thank you for the video of Sanger, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jswvL36w2-M another on the subject.

JoyV

Most of the quotes I listed were NOT from this essay. In fact, I agree with her that overpopulation is a problem, even if I don't agree with her in all particulars of this essay. My problem with a******nists is the methods used to limit population growth rely far more on dealing with the issue by ending a pregnancy instead of by never starting one in the first place.

JoyV

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

By any chance are you Catholic?