video (1 Viewer)

[AzureEagle]

There is something everyone in this forum should see.

In order to have an opinion on abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, one needs to take a hard look at what abortion actually is. I have a lot more respect for people who really get the facts before spouting off about an issue.

So I encourage both pro-choicers and pro-lifers to check out this link:

http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4b-cultural_change.html

I am interested in people's reactions.

 

[1069]

There is something everyone in this forum should see.

In order to have an opinion on abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, one needs to take a hard look at what abortion actually is. I have a lot more respect for people who really get the facts before spouting off about an issue.

So I encourage both pro-choicers and pro-lifers to check out this link:

http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4b-cultural_change.html

I am interested in people's reactions.

I've already looked at "what an abortion actually is".
I watched my own.
As far as the gross-out factor goes, watching myself give birth was far more gory and disgusting. At least when I had an abortion, they didn't have to slice my vagina open all the way down to my arsehole, then stitch it up again.

 

[AzureEagle]

I doubt the child you birthed had his or her arms and legs violently sucked off and his/her skull crushed, or his/her intestines literally ripped out of his body. Gory, yes. viewing murder victims is always gory. But there is a difference between a bloody, albut beautiful live baby and a baby in pieces. Looking at the video, it is obvious that abortion is murder. I guess it is also obvious why you are apparently afraid to view it. Doesn't really surprise me at all.

 

[1069]

I doubt the child you birthed had his or her arms and legs violently sucked off and his/her skull crushed, or his/her intestines literally ripped out of his body. Gory, yes. viewing murder victims is always gory. But there is a difference between a bloody, albut beautiful live baby and a baby in pieces. Looking at the video, it is obvious that abortion is murder. I guess it is also obvious why you are apparently afraid to view it. Doesn't really surprise me at all.

The embryo I aborted didn't have arms or legs yet, just buds. Nevertheless, they weren't "violently sucked off", nor was its skull "crushed".
It didn't have any intestines.
It was removed intact, but it was still more or less microscopic.
However, if ending my pregnancy had necessitated ripping the thing into a thousand pieces, I wouldn't much care. It would've made no difference.
I didn't see any video, by the way.
Your link leads to some brain-dead anti-choice fundie Christian site.

 

[1069]

Okay, finally located the clip.
Um... the first 53% of the clip is printed antichoice rhetoric appearing against a background of a fluttering American flag.
The second bit is the usual boring pictures of things which might be aborted fetal tissue of any stage of gestation, or might be miscarried fetal issue, or might be latex and ketchup, for all I know or care. Fetal porn, I call it. Yawn.
There was certainly no film clip of "what abortion actually is", as promised.
I wouldn't expect the antichoice contingent to ever show such, for myriad reasons, the first being that a D&C on a pregnant woman doesn't appear any different than a D&C on a non-pregnant woman (the procedure is commonly performed on non-pregnant women for a variety of health reasons). It takes about a minute and a half. It is notably lacking in gruesomeness or drama. It would not in any way advance your cause to show what abortion really is, and in fact it would pretty much discredit your cause by exposing its dishonesty.
However, now we come to reason number two why antichoicers don't show real abortions: most women, understandably enough, do not welcome a video camera in the room while they undergo this intimate procedure, any more than most men would welcome a film crew into the examining room while they underwent a proctological exam, even if the film was for political purposes. Therefore, footage showing "what abortion really is" is no doubt difficult to come by.
And reason number three, in order to show a real abortion, you'd have to show a real vagina, and obviously antichoicers aren't about to do that; that would be promoting pornography, indecency, to the Fundie way of thinking. After all, every good fundie- male or female- knows that vaginas are the antichrist.

 

[Deng for president]

This is actually the debate that confirms most of the prejudices that we non-americans have concerning the U.S.
A nation willing to send armies to nations worldwide, killing millions, and then letting massacres and unethical wars go on in other areas du to personal gain, a nation claiming to be liberal, and the representatives of freedom, can't let a person choose wether or not to put a child to the world? Do you honestly think that it's better for a seventeen-year old girl to attempt to handle a child, rather than removing a feetus still incapable of emotions or pain?

 

[Felicity]

in order to show a real abortion, you'd have to show a real vagina, and obviously antichoicers aren't about to do that

http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/inProgress.html

 

[Felicity]

The embryo I aborted didn't have arms or legs yet, just buds. .

What...abortion at about 7 weeks? Like the 1st pic on the link here?
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html

Count the little fingers on those "buds."

I see a radius and ulna...hell, I see a scapula on the left arm..er...I mean..."bud."

 

[Felicity]

Here's a little less "in your face" resource--even pro-choicers have linked to this site. This is 7 weeks gestation http://www.visembryo.com/baby/19.html

Main site http://www.visembryo.com/

 

[AzureEagle]

If you don't believe the pictures, there is a very simple way of proving them. Do a search on the web for 'fetal development' there are plenty of non-'antichoice' sites that have information about how the baby develops in the womb- sites for women who are pregnant with wanted babies who want to know what their child looks like and can do- like babycenter.com and others. Or better yet, check out a medical textbook- you can buy an old one on Amazon.com for pennies. (Make sure to check how the site calculates pregnancy- The pictures are from fertilization, pregnancy is sometimes measured by time from last menstrual period, so the 7th week after conception would be the 9th week after lmp, btw)

I own both "A Child is Born" by pioneer fetologist Lennart Nielson and "The Develping Human Clinically Oriented Embryology" by Keith Moore, m.d. 3rd edition

And they both back up those pictures. Over 80% of all abortions happen at the stage of those pictures or later.

Pictures don't lie. Those are the bodies of murder victims.

As for not showing abortions in progress, you might want to check out http://abortionno.org/Resources/audiovideo.html
the first video. But I warn you- this is very, very difficult to watch. Or at least it was for me.

 

[26 X World Champs]

There is something everyone in this forum should see.

In order to have an opinion on abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, one needs to take a hard look at what abortion actually is. I have a lot more respect for people who really get the facts before spouting off about an issue.

So I encourage both pro-choicers and pro-lifers to check out this link:

http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4b-cultural_change.html

I am interested in people's reactions.

The link is a red herring to a whacked out ultra far right fundie site...not a video, not that it matters anyway.

The object of the thread starter is to gross out people into believing that the physical act of abortion when viewed will somehow effect one's decision to abort. Not true in most cases, especially among the educated.

As a father of two and after witnessing natural child birth an a C-Section I know that when a woman has a child it is one bloody, messy moment. Watching the afterbirth is even "grosser" on the gross meter but if one educates oneself beforehand this is the norm.

I disagree with people who try to use strong arm fear tactics to make their point....wait...I forgot that is the Karl Rove & Republican way of governing.

Abortion is legal, will always be legal and no amount of fear mongering and individual brow beating is going to change this FACT.

No one has the right in the USA to tell a woman what she can do if she's pregnant and this is the way it will always be from now on.

If you don't believe in abortion or don't want to have one that's your choice and no one in the general public will browbeat to change your opinion the way the thread starter attempts to do with the outrageous attempt to use fear tactics.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Pictures don't lie. Those are the bodies of murder victims.

Pictures might not lie but people sure do! For example, you calling legal abortion murder...that is a lie. If it's legal it's not murder not to mention that aborted fetus are NOT human beings which is also necessary when claiming murder.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

It would be refreshing to read an anti-choice post from someone who respects the law and does not lower the debate to calling legal abortion murder.

 

[Felicity]

Abortion is legal, will always be legal and no amount of fear mongering and individual brow beating is going to change this FACT.
.......and this is the way it will always be from now on.

.

I love this "status quo" argument....Progressive? HA!



In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

On June 16, 1858, at the Illinois Republican convention in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln kicked off his bid for the U.S. Senate with a speech that would come to be known as the "House Divided" speech.

Lincoln believed that the recent Supreme Court decision on the Dred Scott case was part of a Democratic conspiracy that would lead to the legalization of slavery in all states. Referring to the court's decision which permitted Dred Scott to live in a free state and yet remain a slave, he said, "what Dred's Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

In the 70s, those Democrats were at it again...led by the Supreme Court. The only thing is, where was our Abe Lincoln?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I love this "status quo" argument....Progressive? HA!

In the 70s, those Democrats were at it again...led by the Supreme Court. The only thing is, where was our Abe Lincoln?

Nothing like staying on topic, eh? Abortion Rights and Civil Rights are one and the same so you're absurd attempt to link slavery to pro-choice idealogy is just that, absurd and ridiculous.

Try again, you just struck out.

BTW - What your point does suggest is that Gay Marriage and Gay Rights will be legal one day...that is what you also meant, right?

 

[Felicity]

Abortion Rights and Civil Rights are one and the same

Thank-you, my point EXACTLY. Who's civil rights were deemed non-existant in the Dred Scott decision? Who's civil rights were deemed non-existant in the Roe decision? You are very astute 26 X--not at all like what they say about you!:sarcasticclap

 

[Felicity]

ANYWAY....to get back on topic...

Originally Posted by 1069
The embryo I aborted didn't have arms or legs yet, just buds. .

What...abortion at about 7 weeks? Like the 1st pic on the link here?
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html

Count the little fingers on those "buds."

I see a radius and ulna...hell, I see a scapula on the left arm..er...I mean..."bud."

Here's a little less "in your face" resource--even pro-choicers have linked to this site. This is 7 weeks gestation http://www.visembryo.com/baby/19.html

Main site http://www.visembryo.com/

 

[26 X World Champs]

Thank-you, my point EXACTLY. Who's civil rights were deemed non-existant in the Dred Scott decision? Who's civil rights were deemed non-existant in the Roe decision? You are very astute 26 X--not at all like what they say about you!:sarcasticclap

Too bad that fetus do not have any legal rights, yesterday, today or tomorrow...but the pregnant woman will always have the right to choose what she wants to do if she does not want to have a child. Roe was a civil rights victory for all women and is now part of the fabric of American law and will never be changed.

Bottom line is that as an American you have the right to CHOOSE what you personally want to do and you always will. Take away that choice (it will never happen) and then you would have civil rights violations.

As I said your point does prove that Gay rights will succeed eventually, probably within a generation when the most homophobic and close minded amongst us pass away and their off-spring will not argue to deprive people of their civil rights....Fetus are not people, they are not human beings, they do not have the same rights as someone who has been born, that is fact, and that will never change...no matter what.

 

[Felicity]

Too bad that fetus do not have any legal rights, yesterday, today or tomorrow...but the pregnant woman will always have the right to choose what she wants to do if she does not want to have a child. Roe was a civil rights victory for all women and is now part of the fabric of American law and will never be changed.

Bottom line is that as an American you have the right to CHOOSE what you personally want to do and you always will. Take away that choice (it will never happen) and then you would have civil rights violations.

Back to the status quo...eh?

As I said your point does prove that Gay rights will succeed eventually, probably within a generation when the most homophobic and close minded amongst us pass away and their off-spring will not argue to deprive people of their civil rights....Fetus are not people, they are not human beings, they do not have the same rights as someone who has been born, that is fact, and that will never change...no matter what.

Is this some sort of bait? Hey darlin', I'm debating, not fishing--keep your worm to yourself.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Back to the status quo...eh?

Is this some sort of bait? Hey darlin', I'm debating, not fishing--keep your worm to yourself.

Are you pro-Iraq War? Pro-Capital Punishment? Anti-Gay Rights? Do you believe in Evolution? What was your feeling on DNA research 25 years ago? Justice Roberts has already clearly stated that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling legalizing abortion, is "settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis."

Is he lying?

 

[AzureEagle]

Ok...scare tactics. Just like the photos of POWs in government internment camps, designed to raise awareness for tortured Muslims. Just like the famous Napalm photo and the journalism photos about Vietnam. Just like the pictures of civil rights activists being attacked by dogs and lynching victims that were spread in the 60s

My point is NOT to compare abortion to these things. My point is that pictures have always been used to reach people. Do you really believe it is always wrong?

And there is another reason to use pictures in the abortion debate. Pro-abortionists dehumanize the unborn child- and deny that abortion is killing a baby. The photos are not merely 'gross' they show torn off arms and legs, ripped out intestines, and the faces of these babies that were killed. They HUMANIZE the victims. Give them (literally) a face. Can any of you pro-choicers look into the perfectly formed face of a twelve week old legally aborted baby and say its not murder? It doesn't surprise me that you don't have the courage to view the bodies of the people you support killing.

 

[1069]

Can any of you pro-choicers look into the perfectly formed face of a twelve week old legally aborted baby and say its not murder?

"Face" or no face, nobody has the right to occupy the body of an unwilling host and subsist by leeching away their bodily resources without their consent.
I have a face, yet I don't have that right.
Even if I would die without a blood, marrow, or kidney transplant, I still don't have the right to help myself to your bodily resources against your will.

 

[Felicity]

"settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis."

Is he lying?

To address actual debate (as opposed to mere 'bate)... No--Roberts is right--just look at Casey.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833
We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. We adhere to this principle for two reasons. First, as we have said, is the doctrine of stare decisis. Any judicial act of line-drawing may seem somewhat arbitrary, but Roe was a reasoned statement, elaborated with great care. We have twice reaffirmed it in the face of great opposition. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S., at 759 ; Akron I, 462 U.S., at 419 -420. Although we must overrule those parts of Thornburgh and Akron I which, in our view, are inconsistent with Roe's statement that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn, see infra, at 40-41, the central premise of those cases represents an unbroken commitment by this Court to the essential holding of Roe. It is that premise which we reaffirm today.


But stare decisis is not a magic bullet. A couple of examples...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=285&invol=393#406
Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. . . . This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation. But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-5721.ZS.html
(b) Although adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis is usually the best policy, the doctrine is not an inexorable command. This Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent when governing decisions are unworkable or badly reasoned, Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 655, particularly in constitutional cases, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 407 (Brandeis, J., dissenting), and in cases involving proce- dural and evidentiary rules. Booth and Gathers were decided by the narrowest of margins, over spirited dissents challenging their basic un derpinnings; have been questioned by members of this Court in later de- cisions; have defied consistent application by the lower courts, see, e. g., State v. Huertas, 51 Ohio St. 3d 22, 33, 553 N. E. 2d 1058, 1070; and, for the reasons heretofore stated, were wrongly decided. Pp. 17-20.


MANY agree that Roe is a LOUSY piece of work as legal arguments go...

Are you still so confident in the status quo?

 

[1069]

Psst... this ("nobody has the right to occupy the body of an unwilling host and subsist by leeching away their bodily resources without their consent.") is your cue to whine, "But a woman consents to pregnancy when she chooses to have seee-eeex. Otherwise, maybe she should just keep her leee-eeeegs shuuu-uuut."

C'mon, shall we whine it together?
One, two, one-two-three:

"But a woman consents to pregnancy when she chooses to have seee-eeex...."

:roll:

 

[Felicity]

"But a woman consents to pregnancy when she chooses to have seee-eeex...."

:roll:

Psst... It's "consents to the POSSIBILITY of pregnancy" ...get the whine right.

Also...to claim otherwise is another example of the pro-choice DENIAL of absolute reality.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The photos are not merely 'gross' they show torn off arms and legs, ripped out intestines, and the faces of these babies that were killed. They HUMANIZE the victims. Give them (literally) a face. Can any of you pro-choicers look into the perfectly formed face of a twelve week old legally aborted baby and say its not murder? It doesn't surprise me that you don't have the courage to view the bodies of the people you support killing.

I vehemently disagree, sorry. A fetus is not a human being. It has no rights. It is none of my business if a woman makes the choice to abort the fetus. I don't have to agree with it, like it etc. but I cannot stop her, nor do I think it is murder.

Using the word murder makes the anti-choice crowd feel better even though it is not true, it is a lie. Abortion is legal, abortion is therefore not murder. Anti-choice people can lie to themselves if that makes them feel better but at the end of the day they have zero rights to prevent a woman from having a legal abortion.

As far as the use of pictures go how come you're not also publicizing and providing links to the real murders that happen everyday in Iraq? We never see pictures of our dead soldiers, how they were killed. We don't even see their coffins. Our soldiers were murdered, they were people, they had rights but I don't see you fighting to have their pictures published so all can see the horrors of war. How come?