'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

Schmika · Nov 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 19 2006, 07:43 PM) [snapback]351807[/snapback]</div>

Schmika, all this stuff is really old. You are aware of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed in 2003, aren't you?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I was replying to the post saying PB abortions are ONLY for life of..... I was told to back it up....so this is what I found. Age of info would not change the point I made. Would it?????

I am not trying to hash up old stuff, just backing up my point that PB's are used just like all the other ways.

I really, and naively, never realized the sheer magnitude of abortions performed..Gaaaaack!!!!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 19 2006, 07:59 PM) [snapback]351815[/snapback]</div>

What do you expect when you use the politically charged name that the opponents of this procedure have coined in order to vilify it?

You'd have better luck finding more neutral facts and unslanted statistics by using the proper medical term for this procedure, "Intact D&X."

Here is a start: House Report 108-058 - PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thanks, but before I read it, is it going to say Intact D&X was ONLY being used for life of mother or fetus? That was the ONLY POINT I was looking for.

I am sorry to all those who spent time looking for stuff to prove anything other than my original point. (post #'s 58 and 60)

dragonfly · Nov 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov, 10:55 PM) [snapback]351958[/snapback]</div>

I was replying to the post saying PB abortions are ONLY for life of..... I was told to back it up....so this is what I found. Age of info would not change the point I made. Would it?????

I am not trying to hash up old stuff, just backing up my point that PB's are used just like all the other ways.
[/b]
Click to expand...

It was YOU who challenged ME on my statement, so it's up to YOU to prove that what I said was NOT TRUE, which you DID NOT.

When I said that PB abortions are only used to save the life of the mother you said:
"I about choked here. This is NOT true." <= Post #58

Later, after I asked you to back it up, you said:
"I don't think ANY rational person can believe that PB abortions are ONLY when the woman's life and or baby's life is at risk."

So actually, YES, age of info DOES change the point you made, because the point you made is NOT TRUE (present tense), and what IS true is that PB abortions are ONLY used to save the mother's life, LIKE I SAID.

qbee42 · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 15 2006, 04:57 PM) [snapback]349733[/snapback]</div>

Personally, I don't think it's about me at all...it's all about her and her need to let us all know where she stands.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I think you have it right there; same reason people wear t-shirts with slogans.

As for me, I'm for retroactive abortion, as long as I get to choose... <_<

Tom

daronspicher · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 19 2006, 10:12 PM) [snapback]351969[/snapback]</div>

It was YOU who challenged ME on my statement, so it's up to YOU to prove that what I said was NOT TRUE, which you DID NOT.

When I said that PB abortions are only used to save the life of the mother you said:
"I about choked here. This is NOT true." <= Post #58

Later, after I asked you to back it up, you said:
"I don't think ANY rational person can believe that PB abortions are ONLY when the woman's life and or baby's life is at risk."

So actually, YES, age of info DOES change the point you made, because the point you made is NOT TRUE (present tense), and what IS true is that PB abortions are ONLY used to save the mother's life, LIKE I SAID.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I posted the typical procedure for PBA earlier in this thread and was hammered for trying to get shock value. Just based on the process itself, I have to say we have our proof of the statement built into the process.

They deliver the baby feet first, so the legs, hips, torso, arms and neck are out. Only the head is inside, and at this point, we are ready to puncture the skull to suck out the brain.

Are you telling me.... At that moment, the life of the mother is at stake?

If no, deliver the baby alive.

If so, what is the fastest possible way to save her? Spend 3 more minutes sucking the brain out of the baby, or spend 3 seconds bringing the head out the rest of the way and having a live birth?

At the point when they go to puncture the skull with the scissors, is it safer for the mother to have the doctor poking around down there with scissors than it is for the doctor to deliver the babies head the rest of the way out?

The answer to that is no. It would always be safer to just deliver the baby. The problem is that it would be illegal to kill the baby once the head comes out all the way. Pro-abortion advocates are trying to tell us that with the head still 2 to 4 inches from being out, this is a 'fetus', if the head happens to pop out before the doctor kills it, then it's a 'baby'.

Why is talking about the step by step process for PBA shocking? Isn't this just an ok thing to be doing, so why is it offensive even to supporters of it?

Alric · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 20 2006, 11:13 AM) [snapback]352060[/snapback]</div>

They deliver the baby feet first, so the legs, hips, torso, arms and neck are out. Only the head is inside, and at this point, we are ready to puncture the skull to suck out the brain.

Are you telling me.... At that moment, the life of the mother is at stake?
[/b]
Click to expand...

That would for people with medical school training and patients to decide. Not me, and certainly not you.

Jonnycat26 · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 20 2006, 11:13 AM) [snapback]352060[/snapback]</div>

They deliver the baby feet first, so the legs, hips, torso, arms and neck are out. Only the head is inside, and at this point, we are ready to puncture the skull to suck out the brain.

Are you telling me.... At that moment, the life of the mother is at stake?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Isn't intact dilation and extraction more about the life of the child? IE, if the child has hydrocephalus, or some other birth defect that means the child wouldn't live.

Personally, I have to question the morals of someone who knows their child would live a short life full of physical pain and suffering and brings them into the world anyhow.

daronspicher · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 20 2006, 09:16 AM) [snapback]352062[/snapback]</div>

That would for people with medical school training and patients to decide. Not me, and certainly not you.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Nope.

Just because you're willing to ignore the facts of the process and blindly allow it to keep happening doesn't mean that I am.

I'm not even asking if the process should be stopped or allowed to continue. I was only asking if based on the situation at the point when the scissors are used to kill the baby, would it be safer for the woman if the baby was taken the next 3 inches out first?

You choose to ignore the obvious answer of yes and defer to blindly following the pro-abortion theme song.

Alric · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 20 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]352098[/snapback]</div>

Nope.

Just because you're willing to ignore the facts of the process and blindly allow it to keep happening doesn't mean that I am.

I'm not even asking if the process should be stopped or allowed to continue. I was only asking if based on the situation at the point when the scissors are used to kill the baby, would it be safer for the woman if the baby was taken the next 3 inches out first?

You choose to ignore the obvious answer of yes and defer to blindly following the pro-abortion theme song.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Just to set this straight. If a physician can save both the baby and mother she will. This procedure is only practiced if the life of the mother is at risk, and the baby would not survive because of prematurity issues, or if the baby has congenital defects that would prevent its survival, or result in a severly diminished quality of life.

Between the Doctor and you, I would defer to the people with training. You may think you are doing something heroic by lobbying against this procedure, but your ignorance and that of fundamentalism in general, will cause more harm than good.

daronspicher · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 20 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]352106[/snapback]</div>

Just to set this straight. If a physician can save both the baby and mother she will. This procedure is only practiced if the life of the mother is at risk, and the baby would not survive because of prematurity issues, or if the baby has congenital defects that would prevent its survival, or result in a severly diminished quality of life.

Between the Doctor and you, I would defer to the people with training. You may think you are doing something heroic by lobbying against this procedure, but your ignorance and that of fundamentalism in general, will cause more harm than good.
[/b]
Click to expand...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem. [/b]
Click to expand...

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5081

Dr. McMahon voluntarily submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a sample of 175 partial-birth abortions he performed. In its official report the committee notes that 22% of the total abortions were for reasons of depression, not protection of the mother's life.[6]

Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, said, "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of the mother."[8]
[/b]
Click to expand...

There is so much out there, here are just a couple.

dragonfly · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov, 09:04 AM) [snapback]352120[/snapback]</div>

There is so much out there, here are just a couple.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Daron, the answer is simple. If what you say is true, then the current law disallows PBA. Period. What's the problem?

daronspicher · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 20 2006, 11:19 AM) [snapback]352126[/snapback]</div>

Daron, the answer is simple. If what you say is true, then the current law disallows PBA. Period. What's the problem?
[/b]
Click to expand...

The problem is, the law does not currently allow PBA.

We need to get that law.

santoro1 · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 19 2006, 03:20 AM) [snapback]351632[/snapback]</div>

What makes you a religious fanatic isn't that you believe in God, ajs, it's that you want everyone else to believe in your God and the beliefs that you think your God wants us to have, and that you are making the erroneous assumption that your views are so correct that anyone not believing the same way must be ignorant or too lazy to achieve your 'high morals'. At the same time, you attempted to make the argument that it isn't really about religion, but plain common sense, then you proceeded to go on a what amounted to a religion-laced rant. That's not the way to build credibility. And people responding to me aren't fans...they are individuals who just happened to agree with my assessment of your post...way to be condescending to them, though, I'm sure that made you some friends.
Source?
I have two responses to you, one of which you'd already know if you had read this entire thread:

1. I don't consider a fetus to be a viable human life until the third trimester, then the woman better have a damn good reason for wanting to kill the now-viable baby. Even then, it is her baby, so the argument can be made that she still has the right to take the kid out of the world she brought him/her into. Biologically speaking, this is not an unusual practice. In this society, I'm less likely to make that argument, but some societies have no problems with killing unwanted babies. You are the one attaching a particular moral quality to killing fetuses or babies. There are many educated, intelligent, and moral people in the world who don't share your particular feelings.

2. I don't value humans as much as you do, so killing them isn't as dramatic to me as it is to you. This is an important distinction between us, and the reason why an effort on your part to make me feel guilty or value fetuses or babies in some fashion is likely to be unsuccessful.
This is the kind of statement that really makes you appear to be a narrow minded and extremist religious zealot. "Belief in God is the basis for having morals"??? ugh, gag me with a spoon! Obviously, we'll have to just disagree on this, but I could easily show you to be wrong about where morals come from, even by your own rules. In other words, perhaps you should learn more about your Bible before discussing the issue of morals as related to that book.
No, killing a fetus, or even a baby isn't necessarily wrong. It's wrong according to you. Obviously, many people feel differently than you. You've once again made the assumption that your moral judgments are the only ones that should matter to everyone else, and are so oblivious to other viewpoints that anyone not agreeing with you is either ignorant or morally lazy.
Using the term "decreased morals", then calling that a FACT is enough to discredit your assertion of it's own accord. Any statement of a qualitative nature is automatically an opinion, not a fact. And what does someone killing my cat or dog have to do with this discussion?
bleh...in this paragraph you're just regurgitating the same argument: God said abortion is bad, so it's bad. Whatever. My god doesn't give a crap, so then what?
I know what happens in abortions, and I'm still in favor of them. So now you do know someone who remains an advocate. And I won't allow you and your religious kind to politically force me to do what you want just because you are under the delusion that you have a "moral imperative". You don't. And I didn't make a joke out of the subject of abortion...I made light of your ability to reason, because clearly your decision-making is guided by your belief in God and the Bible...not a very solid philosophical foundation.
No, I didn't get that one wrong at all. Here's what you said that I paraphrased from:

Notice that I bolded those words that you used that had to do with the effort it takes to be moral. It sure appears to me that you're saying that believing in God and being moral isn't easy, correct? And if that's true, then the converse of that must also be true; that being immoral and giving in to the "sins of the flesh", or doing things that you "know" are wrong is the easy way out. Since it takes discipline and effort to believe in God and practice high moral standards, those who don't must not be as disciplined as you. Hence, they're lazy and the end result of that laziness is that they're immoral. Therefore, according to your reasoning, "people who don't believe in God are immoral and lazy."

ajs, basically any time you start to drag God or the Bible into this discussion, you're going to lose. I don't believe in your god or your bible, so using them in an argument means nothing to me. In addition, your ability to believe that your morals are superior to those of us who are pro-abortion are quaint, at best, and quite archaic. You speak as though it is obvious that you're right and the rest of us must just not know anything about abortion, or are immoral. You seem to lack the ability to understand that some of us know exactly what abortion entails, have probably endured it, and continue to advocate for it...and through it all...we've still managed to be 'moral' people.

Finally, here were your thoughts out of your last paragraph:

"For those who are pro abortion think hard and long about your position. Learn more and more about it. Determine if your lifestyle is appropriate and in line with your beliefs."

"For those who are anti abortion keep talking. Don't be intimidated by those who ridicule you."

Notice how you are talking down to the pro abortion people, as though it's so clear that these foolish little children are wrong that they need to learn or re-examine their beliefs? And then you cheer on the anti abortion people as though they are the heroes in this discussion and need to keep 'fighting on' against the ignorant heathens? That's what makes you a religious fanatic, and that's why you are a dangerous person to a free society. You are the kind of person who would legislate laws that make it illegal for others to do anything that you (or your god or your narrow interpretation of the Bible) deem immoral.

You and I would rarely agree on issues, because you are a religious follower, rather than a reasoned intellectual. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it's obvious to me that you certainly don't, so why are you preaching to the rest of us?

Vince
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post...now that you have proclaimed that you don't believe in God, do not hold human life of the same value as I do, nor do you find any need for God in your life it makes it very easy to understand your response to these topics. I find it humorous and equally erroneous that you are set in thinking that YOUR views are above others.. all the things you accuse me of are in reality a mirror of yourself. You find "religious" people dangerous...I find someone with no religion equally dangerous. You find "religious" people have a "holier than thou" attitude...Read your posts, you will find you have the same "holier than thou" attitude present in your words towards others. You find us "religious" to be fanatical. I find your attitude to be equally fanatically in the opposite direction. You find using God and religion as a weak philosophical foundation...I find the absence of God in that equation to be equally weak. So here we stand, at opposite ends of the spectrum...

Since you asked...Regarding my source for the statement about the number of family's ready to adopt is almost equal to the number of abortions performed...My source is the book (and you will absolutely love this title)...Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments. Author- Randy Alcorn. This book is a non religious book, with approximately 95% of the book dealing with the scientific and medical analysis of abortion. It has close to 500 sources in its bibliography to substantiate the statements made in it.

I wish you the best of good fortune in your life. It is obvious we are exact opposites in our beliefs and attitudes. I can live with that.

daronspicher · Nov 20, 2006

November 8, the supreme court heard a case on this. I imagine in the spring we will have a ruling of some sort.

dragonfly · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov, 09:53 AM) [snapback]352142[/snapback]</div>

The problem is, the law does not currently allow PBA.

We need to get that law.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm totally confused now. I thought you were arguing against PBA. But you are arguing for allowing it?

dragonfly · Nov 20, 2006

ajs: another question for you.

Do you think that all American citizens should abide by the standards as set forth by the Christian reading of the Bible?

Even the Jews and the Muslims? And then why not have the Muslims and the Christians abide by the Jewish reading?

And then how do you even decide which Christian reading to use? Some choose to interpret the Bible literally, and others don't.

Isn't it better for people to choose for themselves how to interpret their religion's scriptures? Isn't that kind of the whole basis for why the U.S. broke off from England's rule?

MarinJohn · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 17 2006, 06:00 PM) [snapback]351243[/snapback]</div>

WHY!!!! I'll bet she cares for Pinto and her expressions are out of love. WHY O' WHY do you need t OFFEND people who are trying (as best they know how) to connect and reach out. Nothing Pinto has said indicates this person holds ill will toward her. Some of you are just spiteful.
[/b]
Click to expand...

The post you referenced is not to be taken literally. Knowing Pinto as we all do, can you think for one moment she would take my post seriously and offend her long-time friend on the advice of a stranger? You should also know me enough by now after almost 700 posts to know when I am serious and when I am not. Lighten up for the attempt at humor, agree with the 'opposition' when you can to show we all really have more in common than differences, and 'educate' me when all of the above fail. Sheesh!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 18 2006, 12:50 AM) [snapback]351341[/snapback]</div>

What a thread.

(TJ translation)

Be more like Christ, and less like a Christian, I say.
[/b]
Click to expand...

This is one of the more 'christian' statements I have heard in quite a while. TJ I wish you had a congregation in my neighborhood. I'd join, from what little I know of you by your posts. TJ 4 pope!

daronspicher · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 20 2006, 12:00 PM) [snapback]352150[/snapback]</div>

I'm totally confused now. I thought you were arguing against PBA. But you are arguing for allowing it?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Now I'm not sure if you're playing me here or honestly asking the question.

You seem so much more informationally informed on so many things, I'm not sure what to make of this non-informed reply.

PBA is currently legal in way too many states.

I'm firmly against it everywhere..

I think we need laws prohibiting it.

how's that?

dragonfly · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov, 10:36 AM) [snapback]352165[/snapback]</div>

Now I'm not sure if you're playing me here or honestly asking the question.

You seem so much more informationally informed on so many things, I'm not sure what to make of this non-informed reply.

PBA is currently legal in way too many states.

I'm firmly against it everywhere..

I think we need laws prohibiting it.

how's that?
[/b]
Click to expand...

It was an honest question. Thanks for clarifying.

PBA is currently illegal in all states, except when the mother's life is at risk. If it's true as you say that PBA is never used to save the life of the mother, then the current law illegalizes PBA altogether. So I don't see how what you're asking for is any different from what we already have.

daronspicher · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 20 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]352167[/snapback]</div>

It was an honest question. Thanks for clarifying.

PBA is currently illegal in all states, except when the mother's life is at risk. If it's true as you say that PBA is never used to save the life of the mother, then the current law illegalizes PBA altogether. So I don't see how what you're asking for is any different from what we already have.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Need to tighten up what it means to "save the life of the mother".

Here's one quote from an earlier post:

Dr. McMahon voluntarily submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a sample of 175 partial-birth abortions he performed. In its official report the committee notes that 22% of the total abortions were for reasons of depression, not protection of the mother's life.[6]

Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, said, "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of the mother."[8][/b]
Click to expand...

If Pamela Smith is correct, then we have 2 choices. Either the doc's who are doing this PBA claiming the life of the mother is at stake are incompetent and in these cases doctors like pamela smith who don't need to do this to save the mother should be called into the room.... Or, she's wrong... and however many other thousands of doctors who have her same opinnion on PBA are all wrong.

Can half the doctors be wrong about whether this is necessary to literally save the mothers life, or are you ready to concede that a great % of the PBA being done are not to save the mother at all, but for discretionary reasons? Pamela says 100% are discretionary, this is never needed. Can you admit that as many at 10% shouldn't be done, and the life of the mother was not at stake?

dragonfly · Nov 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov, 10:53 AM) [snapback]352175[/snapback]</div>

Need to tighten up what it means to "save the life of the mother".

Here's one quote from an earlier post:
If Pamela Smith is correct, then we have 2 choices. Either the doc's who are doing this PBA claiming the life of the mother is at stake are incompetent and in these cases doctors like pamela smith who don't need to do this to save the mother should be called into the room.... Or, she's wrong... and however many other thousands of doctors who have her same opinnion on PBA are all wrong.

Can half the doctors be wrong about whether this is necessary to literally save the mothers life, or are you ready to concede that a great % of the PBA being done are not to save the mother at all, but for discretionary reasons? Pamela says 100% are discretionary, this is never needed. Can you admit that as many at 10% shouldn't be done, and the life of the mother was not at stake?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Your references are from 1995!

The current law was signed in 2003!

You guys are jumping up and down about a problem that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. For people who claim to be so passionate about this issue, you sure are ill-informed.

Back to the point, IF a post-2003 PBA is performed, it is up to the DOCTORS to decide whether it was needed to save the life of the mother. And IF the doctors are doing anything else, they are BREAKING THE LAW.

Sheesh.

'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

Schmika New Member

dragonfly New Member

qbee42 My other car is a boat

daronspicher Active Member

Alric New Member

Jonnycat26 New Member

daronspicher Active Member

Alric New Member

daronspicher Active Member

dragonfly New Member

daronspicher Active Member

santoro1 New Member

daronspicher Active Member

dragonfly New Member

dragonfly New Member

MarinJohn Senior Member

daronspicher Active Member

dragonfly New Member

daronspicher Active Member

dragonfly New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

Schmika New Member

dragonfly New Member

qbee42 My other car is a boat

daronspicher Active Member

Alric New Member

Jonnycat26 New Member

daronspicher Active Member

Alric New Member

daronspicher Active Member

dragonfly New Member

daronspicher Active Member

santoro1 New Member

daronspicher Active Member

dragonfly New Member

dragonfly New Member

MarinJohn Senior Member

daronspicher Active Member

dragonfly New Member

daronspicher Active Member

dragonfly New Member