I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."
I'm pro-choice (although I think so called partial-birth 'abortions' are a travesty), but, Steen, you're getting tiresome, even to me:roll: ....steen said:Ah, another pro-life lie. :roll:
but then there is no such thing, at least not even remotely per the way the pro-lifers present it.ngdawg said:I'm pro-choice (although I think so called partial-birth 'abortions' are a travesty),
Oh, I get it. You think I should spend 15 minutes replying in detail to the facts regarding pro-life lies so they can go right back to spewing the same lie again?but, Steen, you're getting tiresome, even to me:roll: ....
And how would it be different this time than all the other times I have pointed out, documented, verified and referenced that the pro-life claim is a lie? Why the hell should I bother when the other side lie all the time on just about everything?Just as I mentioned linking the OP's info, explain why you say what was posted is a lie? Refutation would go a lot further if you had a counterpoint-just a suggestion.
easyt65 said:- This is VERY important because if the head comes out, the baby is considered, by the extreme legal definition pro-abortionists got pushed through as part of the legislation, to have been born thus and only then considered a person with a right to life.
FISHX said:Oh yes and steen can you prove your claims that the d&x is not used after 22 weeks please your say so does not constitute proof.
ngdawg said:So once again, I ask you, provide your sources via link.
When YOU bring up a subject open to debate it is your onus to back it up, not you detractors to look it up.
Peterson was convicted under the California law posted in another thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=7750
Connor peterson was in 8 months gestation and considered a viable fetus, hence murdered. A man who killed his 5 week pregnant wife a year later was NOT charged with murder a second time in that case.
ngdawg said:So once again, I ask you, provide your sources via link.
When YOU bring up a subject open to debate it is your onus to back it up, not you detractors to look it up.
Peterson was convicted under the California law posted in another thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=7750
Connor peterson was in 8 months gestation and considered a viable fetus, hence murdered. A man who killed his 5 week pregnant wife a year later was NOT charged with murder a second time in that case.
Not my 'fellow pro-choice bubba'....while in making points we almost have to deal in generalizations, it would behoove us to address either the person we are quoting or the posted agenda. I regard some here as total fundie fanatics who talk thru their A$$es and some at least worthy of responding to, even if they don't care for the response and that goes both ways(pro- or anti-choice)-truly some go over the top and in trying to make a point, lose the point completely.easyt65 said:I will try to go back on Google and get the link to the article I used, but I cut and pasted form the article, so it may take me a little bit of time.
In regards to your opinion/remarks on Connor Peterson, more than one of your fellow 'pro-choice' bubbas in another thread adamantly demanded that Connor was NOT a viable fetus, did not deserve any protection under the law, and insisted that Peterson's 2nd murder charge was for taking away laci's right of choice. They would not hear me when i said that this was their opinion and interpretation, that it was not others', and that I believed it would lead to a hearing in the Supreme court. I am pleased to read you are more open, at least to the idea that there can be more than 1 way to read the peterson verdict.
easyt65 said:I understand your dis-like of the label 'pro-abortion', but I find your argument a little funny.
YOU might be for abortions only in the case of medical necessity to save the mother or in cases of other medical emergencies; however, the majority of the 'pro-choice' crowd i run across are rabid defenders of abortion. many have told me on this board that whether to have an abortion or not, when to have one or not, is totally up to the mother, and all abortions should be attainable by women. Many have even defended the right to abortions to be used as some sort of post-sex contraceptive, should the woman so choose to do so. THAT, my friend, is NOT 'pro-choice...unless you count the choice to be totally irresponsible and not have to worry about the consequences of your actions'! THAT is "Pro-Abortion".
You demand to be called 'Pro-Choice' yet call us 'Anti-Abortion', which is just as absurd! We are also 'Pro-Choice' - we just choose LIFE.
I still believe in abortions for the sake of medical emergencies/to save the mother's life. I believe in the 'morning after' pill for rape victims, meaning no need for any 'abortion'. I am AGAINST the views of many of the pro-abortion people I have talked to on this board who believe a woman should be allowed to kill a baby at any point , as long as there is any body part still inside the mother. They are the Uber radicals you mentioned in your post.
But your point is well taken - there are Pro-Abortionists, and there are Pro-Choice. There are Pro-Choice members among your ranks that do not fall into the Pro-Abortion category but still desire a more liberal abortion rights attitude and policy than the members in my Pro-Choice circle.
ngdawg said:I am NOT anti-abortion except for my own personal choice. To inflict my values on someone who doesn't have them is simply wrong. I don't even do that to my own kids-they are given choices and information, learn their consequences and subsequently, continue on the path of making the choices that are correct for them.
From: http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_restrictions.htmleasyt65 said:There are many out there, even in our own Goverment that believe otherwise, though. I can not 'force' my values on others by praying aloud in school, but the Federal govt. has made it legal for the school principal to be able to take my 13yo daughter to have an abortion during school hours without ever notifying me/consulting me!
THAT is a product of the extreme side of 'pro-abortionists', stripping the rights of parents away to ensure their right 'force' their values on my family!
ngdawg said:From: http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_restrictions.html
Forty-four states have adopted laws requiring a young woman to obtain the consent of or notify one or both parents prior to an abortion, but in nine of those states, the laws are enjoined or not enforced. Most of the statutes apply to young women under 18 and provide for a court bypass procedure should a young woman be unable to involve her parents. Most measures include exceptions for medical emergencies.
Your contention that the Federal Government has made it legal for a " school principal to be able to take my 13yo daughter to have an abortion during school hours without ever notifying me/consulting me!" is not entirely true at all. Six states are without any parental notification laws currently-so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can obtain an abortion without your consent.
The site covers this more in detail than I'm willing to copy and paste.
Umm it appears to me that that is true for only 22 states--the other 28 states--you as a parent ain't got a say--although they'll "tell you about your daughter getting an abortion" in 13... "Notification" is not the same as "consent."ngdawg said:so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can obtain an abortion without your consent.
Sorry about that...should read: so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can't obtain an abortion without your consent.
Figured you got that, but I hate grammar errors, specially when they're mine:mrgreen:
ngdawg said, “NONE here are pro-abortion”
“To inflict my values on someone who doesn't have them is simply wrong. I don't even do that to my own kids-they are given choices and information, learn their consequences and subsequently, continue on the path of making the choices that are correct for them.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?