TrumpTrain
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 146
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Samuel Armas is the child shown in a famous photograph by Michael Clancy..........
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.”
And there's a whole list of sources to back it up...so snopes didnt just 'choose the liberal view.'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/
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/
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.
Here's the true story behind the picture.......
May I ask why this picture and your comments are here in the Abortion sub-forum?
This does not sway me one bit.
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?..........
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/
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.
.........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"................
Struggling Photographer Chooses Principle Over Money
https://www.justfacts.com/news.strugglingphotographer.asp
I'll go with the word of the man who took the picture, not the word of someone who wants to murder babies.
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.
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:
.......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.
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.
(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.
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?