Who Is Samuel Armas

[TrumpTrain]

Samuel Armas is the child shown in a famous photograph by Michael Clancy, dubbed the "Hand of Hope," of his hand extending from an opening in his mother's uterus and touching his surgeon's finger during open fetal surgery for spina bifida.

The photograph was taken during a medical procedure to fix the spina bifida lesion of a 21-week-old fetus in the womb. The operation was performed by a surgical team at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. The team, Dr. Joseph Bruner and Dr. Noel Tulipan, had been developing a technique for correcting certain fetal problems in mid-pregnancy. Their procedure involved temporarily opening the uterus, draining the amniotic fluid, partially extracting and performing surgery on the tiny fetus, and then restoring the fetus to the uterus back inside the mother.

Pictures from the surgery were printed in a number of newspapers in the U.S. and around the world, including USA Today. As a result of the operation, Armas was healthy when he was delivered on December 2, 1999.

On September 25, 2003, the boy's parents, Alex and Julie, testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space about the photograph and their experience with in-utero surgery: "Today, Samuel is nearly four years old and has not had to endure the surgeries that are common for most children with spina bifida. He's walking with leg braces, is cognitively normal, and loves looking for bugs." — Alex Armas

source link

 

[TrumpTrain]

Samuel Armas is the child shown in a famous photograph by Michael Clancy..........

Michael Clancy: The Photographer Whose Amazing Pro-Life Picture Changed the World
https://www.lifenews.com/2008/07/04/nat-4018/

EXCERPTS:

Clancy said he lived 43 years without purpose until he became a Christian and, within three months of his conversion, he received a call from USA Today to take a picture of a surgery of an unborn child with spina bifida.

“If that isn’t a slap in the face and a clear a calling for a mission,” he said.

Clancy said one of the nurses involved in the operation said this was nothing unusual, making it clear to him he didn’t just imagine the picture he took.

“Oh, they do that all the time,” she responded.

Since Clancy took the photo, the Vanderbilt University doctor who performed the procured and mainstream media outlets have both denied that Samuel moved his hand willingly. Time Magazine had planned to run a story featuring a staged picture similar to Clancy’s and the magazine offered Clancy money to never show the world the photo of Samuel he took.

But Clancy won’t relent.

“I will dedicate my life defending this photo and its authentic,” he said. “This is God’s picture.”

 

[Lursa]

Here's the true story behind the picture:

However, it is not true, as described in the accompanying text, that these photographs were taken as Samuel’s hand “emerged from the mother’s uterus to grasp the finger of*Dr. JosephBruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life,” or that*Dr. Bruner*said “when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life.” This misinformation has been propagated by many different sources, including the Michael Clancy, the photographer who snapped the pictures:

What actually took place, as described in news reports of the surgery, was that:

Just as surgeon*Dr. Joseph*Bruner was closing the incision in Julie Armas’ uterus, Samuel’s thumbnail-sized hand flopped out. Bruner lifted it gently and tucked it back in.

The surgeon, Dr. Bruner, later elaborated on some of the exaggerated and false claims made about the photograph:
“It has become an urban legend,” says Bruner, the Vanderbilt University surgeon who fixed the spina bifida lesion on Samuel. Many people he hears from wonder whether it’s a fake.

“One person said the photo had been reviewed by a team of medical experts and they had determined that it was a hoax,” Bruner says with a laugh.

More commonly, people want to know how the photo came to be.

Some opponents of abortion have claimed that the baby reached through the womb and grabbed the doctor’s hand.
Not true, Bruner says.
Samuel and his mother, Julie, were under anesthesia and could not move.
“The baby did not reach out,” Bruner says. “The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on.”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hand-of-hope/

And there's a whole list of sources to back it up...so snopes didnt just 'choose the liberal view.'

 

[Scrabaholic]

Samuel and his mother, Julie, were under anesthesia and could not move.

“The baby did not reach out,” Bruner says. “The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on.”3

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hand-of-hope/

This does not sway me one bit.

 

[Lursa]

Samuel Armas is the child shown in a famous photograph by Michael Clancy, dubbed the "Hand of Hope," of his hand extending from an opening in his mother's uterus and touching his surgeon's finger during open fetal surgery for spina bifida.

The photograph was taken during a medical procedure to fix the spina bifida lesion of a 21-week-old fetus in the womb. The operation was performed by a surgical team at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. The team, Dr. Joseph Bruner and Dr. Noel Tulipan, had been developing a technique for correcting certain fetal problems in mid-pregnancy. Their procedure involved temporarily opening the uterus, draining the amniotic fluid, partially extracting and performing surgery on the tiny fetus, and then restoring the fetus to the uterus back inside the mother.

May I ask why this picture and your comments are here in the Abortion sub-forum?

 

[TrumpTrain]

Here's the true story behind the picture.......

I'll go with the word of the man who took the picture, not the word of someone who wants to murder babies.

May I ask why this picture and your comments are here in the Abortion sub-forum?

No, you may not. Figure it out yourself. I don't jump when baby-killers yell jump.

 

[TrumpTrain]

This does not sway me one bit.

Me neither. Its more smear and attack tactics.

You have a real photo taken during an operation, an event that totally changed the photographers life, and some imbeciles wants to tear it down in order to justify murdering children. Its despicable.

 

[TrumpTrain]

QUOTE: "Clancy described how Samuel not only reached out of the womb during the surgery but flailed his arm about. “Just as he lifted his hand in the motion I fired the first frame of a four frame sequence,” he said.

https://www.lifenews.com/2008/07/04/nat-4018/

 

[Lursa]

I'll go with the word of the man who took the picture, not the word of someone who wants to murder babies.



No, you may not. Figure it out yourself. I don't jump when baby-killers yell jump.

Because a photographer knows more than doctors?

Do you understand the purpose and effects of anesthesia?

And I guess you cannot support your emotionally, but not factually, driven post in this sub-forum.

That's fine. Altho it's funny when you squirm under imagined authority when the words were clearly and politely, "May I ask?" and not a demand of any kind.

 

[TrumpTrain]

Because a photographer knows more than doctors?..........

He was there, you were not. He saw what he saw.

I don't argue with people who promote murdering children. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Lursa]

QUOTE: "Clancy described how Samuel not only reached out of the womb during the surgery but flailed his arm about. “Just as he lifted his hand in the motion I fired the first frame of a four frame sequence,” he said.

https://www.lifenews.com/2008/07/04/nat-4018/

Anyone can lie. Esp when it will sell more pictures.

 

[Lursa]

He was the, you were not. He saw what he saw.

I don't argue with people who promote murdering children. Welcome to my ignore list.

Heh, ignore away but I will always feel free to respond to your posts when I choose...and since no one knows I'm on Ignore...that person usually looks like they cannot refute my comments.

And my understanding science does not equal 'promoting murdering children.' THat ridiculously emotional rhetoric from you shows you dont really use science to support your position...since you just abandon it when it's destroyed.

 

[TrumpTrain]

Struggling Photographer Chooses Principle Over Money
https://www.justfacts.com/news.strugglingphotographer.asp

.........What Michael Clancy refers to as 'the experience of a lifetime', began last summer when he received a phone call from USA Today. The national newspaper asked him to photograph an innovative surgery being performed on prenatal babies with spina bifida. Spina bifida is a condition where the baby's body fails to properly enclose the spine during prenatal development. Doctors at Vanderbilt University Medical Center have developed a corrective procedure that begins with opening the mother's abdomen along the bikini line, withdrawing the uterus, and placing it on top of her stomach. Operation on the baby commences after the doctor cuts a hole in the uterus and drains the amniotic fluid. The surgeon encloses the spine by stitching the skin around it using sutures thinner than a human hair. The amniotic fluid is then returned to the uterus and the womb is placed back in the mother's body.

Clancy accepted the assignment from USA Today, and a few days later found himself in an operating room at Vanderbilt. The surgery lasted for an hour. Clancy shot nine rolls of film, averaging one picture every 11 seconds. It was near the end of the surgery when he captured this striking photo.

Excitedly, Clancy acquired the services of a photo agency to see if Life magazine would like to publish his picture. The response he received shocked and angered him. Clancy says that Life expressed an interest in buying his picture, but only for the purpose of eliminating it. Life magazine is owned by Time-Warner, a 27 billion dollar corporate conglomerate that owns an assortment of high profile media and entertainment interests such as CNN, HBO, Sports Illustrated, and Time. Michael Clancy's claim has been confirmed independently by a source who wishes to remain anonymous.

"They want to buy it to kill it."

These are the words that Clancy said he heard from the photo agency that was negotiating the sale of his picture to Life. Clancy had been struggling to earn a living as a photographer for 13 years. He had earned $7,900 the previous year and was deeply in debt. Although he needed the cash, his immediate response was: "Bad choice of words. No way. Not for any amount of money"................

 

[Lursa]

Struggling Photographer Chooses Principle Over Money
https://www.justfacts.com/news.strugglingphotographer.asp

There is no source at all in that article that backs up the photog's word on Life's actions. None.

He probably just got way more offers from other organizations and would have made more $$...and had to get out of a contract with Life.

Some people are so naive, they will believe anything that conforms to their preconceived, rigidly held beliefs.

We can see $$ motive for the photog to lie. What would the reasons be for the Dr to lie? Or the rest of the OR medical personnel? THey had zero abortion-related agenda, they were there doing surgery on a baby that was going to be born.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I'll go with the word of the man who took the picture, not the word of someone who wants to murder babies.

I'll go with the surgeon who knows more about anesthesia than the photographer does.

BTW, got any proof that the surgeon "wants to murder babies"?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Me neither. Its more smear and attack tactics.

You have a real photo taken during an operation, an event that totally changed the photographers life, and some imbeciles wants to tear it down in order to justify murdering children. Its despicable.

I said your photo doesn't sway me one bit.

Insults will get you nowhere.

 

[AGENT J]

Michael Clancy: The Photographer Whose Amazing Pro-Life Picture Changed the World
https://www.lifenews.com/2008/07/04/nat-4018/

EXCERPTS:

LMAO debunked years ago......

why do people think lies will every actually work or better yet why this would matter to the topic..
opcorn2:

 

[Lursa]

LMAO debunked years ago......

why do people think lies will every actually work or better yet why this would matter to the topic..
opcorn2:

Exactly. To both observations.

 

[Cameron]

Abortion at 21 weeks (the age of the fetus in that photo) is highly restricted in most of America. I generally think that in most cases the decision to abort can be made by 6-7 weeks, absent some medical necessity. At 6 weeks a fetus is the size of a pea and looks like this:

I don't think there is anything that could convince me that terminating a 6-week old fetus is equivalent to killing a baby.

It's for this reason that SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade articulated distinctions based on trimesters.

 

[TrumpTrain]

.......I don't think there is anything that could convince me that terminating a 6-week old fetus is equivalent to killing a baby........

So do looks determine whether someone is human or not? Maybe we can murder people like the elephant man, right? He looks pretty bad.

Or size? Does size determine where someone is human or not? People come in all shapes and sizes.

Your criteria falls short. Looks, shape, size.... ...none of that cosmetic crap matters. A human being with human DNA is a human being. Period.

 

[Lursa]

So do looks determine whether someone is human or not? Maybe we can murder people like the elephant man, right? He looks pretty bad.

Or size? Does size determine where someone is human or not? People come in all shapes and sizes.

Your criteria falls short. Looks, shape, size.... ...none of that cosmetic crap matters. A human being with human DNA is a human being. Period.

It's human, Homo sapiens...that is a scientific classification.

Having rights is a legal status...determined by our judicial system. And the unborn have been examined and determined as not equal to born people and therefore they have no rights recognized.

 

[TrumpTrain]

The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws.

Roe v Wade flies in the face of science, other laws, and common sense.

 

[Lursa]

The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws.

Roe v Wade flies in the face of science, other laws, and common sense.

No, they are specifically NOT considered human beings by the US govt.

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

And you demonstrate little understanding of the unborn victims/siimilar legislation in different states. In all cases, the charges are brought on behalf of the mother and/or the state...not on behalf of the unborn. The unborn is treated more like property that has been destroyed or taken from those with TRUE legal interest: the mother and/or the state.

And again, everyone knows the unborn are Homo sapiens, a scientific classification.

That does not mean, obviously, that the unborn have any legal status or rights at all...and they do not.

 

[TrumpTrain]

Life begins at conception, so unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome, stated that "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."

 

[TrumpTrain]

The decision in Roe v. Wade was wrong and should be overturned. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the right to privacy defended in Roe v. Wade is "utterly idiotic" and should not be considered binding precedent: "There is no right to privacy [in the US Constitution]." [153] [154] In his dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that an abortion "is not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution..." [49] Furthermore, the 14th Amendment bars states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [155] The Supreme Court overreached in Roe v. Wade when it excluded unborn children from the class of "persons."