I just can't get over it.
Liberals claim to be compassionate, claim to care about life, but they think its okay to kill a baby.
There is no doubt that is what it is, period
Jay had he LAME ass link that doesn't show that late term abortions are needed. With the medical technology available today, there is just about NO TIME a late term abortion is needed to save the life of the mother. Why do you need it guys?
99.9% of the time it is used to kill a perfectly healthy baby...
You are not for choice an any other aspect of life, except the killing of a baby, please explain this...
And the late term is even more evil, because there is no reason for it, and it definitely kills a baby that can live outside the body...you guys are flat out evil.
Here are some actual facts, not Jay's lame ass story on Daily Kos:
-- the decision, in February 1997, by Ron Fitzsimmons -- then and now the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers -- to repudiate what he called "the party line." Fitzsimmons estimated that the method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and "in the vast majority of cases" on "a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along" (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997). Subsequently, other spokespersons for major abortion providers publicly defended Fitzsimmons and affirmed the accuracy of his statements.http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdfhttp://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdfhttp://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/AMAFitzimmons1997.pdf
What new evidence has come to light since 1997 only reinforces the conclusion that some practitioners use the method routinely during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, and even later, and that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions do not involve any acute medical circumstances. For example, Kansas became the only state to enact a law that requires reporting of partial-birth abortions separately from other abortion methods. The first full year the law was in effect (1999), Kansas abortionists reported that they performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as "viable," and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for "mental" (as opposed to "physical") health reasons. See the compilation here.
In January 1997, the PBS documentary program MEDIA MATTERS devoted a major segment to an examination of how much of the news media had uncritically adopted as fact assertions that were highly disputed from the beginning, and that were disproved when belatedly subjected to journalistic scrutiny. The transcript is here:http://www.pbs.org/wnet/mediamatters99/transcript2.htmlOne of the journalists interviewed in the MEDIA MATTERS program was Washington Post medical writer David Brown, M.D. After interviewing numerous abortionists, Dr. Brown wrote, "[I]n most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy." He also said, "Most people who got this procedure were really not very different from most people who got abortions." After all that, can the pro-abortion advocacy groups revive the myth? It looks like they're trying. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), in a September 17, 2003 press release, asserted that the bill would "outlaw a medical procedure used primarily in emergency abortions." http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PPrelease091703.html
You should really be ashamed of yourselves
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Explain the need for late term abortions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Late-term elective abortions are illegal almost everywhere in the US. I don't know of anyone lobbying to try to save them.
Here's a well-sourced explanation of the difference between late-term abortion (which does not happen electively), and the various kinds of second-trimester abortions (which are mostly non-elective as well).
For example, she links to this chart (.pdf) that shows abortion laws in every state on April 1 of this year (obviously he Carhart ruling will lead to some changes). There are not many places a pregnant woman can go for a late-term abortion.
And if you want to talk about people who ought to be ashamed of themselves, maybe you should talk about Randall Terry, of operation rescue, who himself called the partial-birth abortion ban "a political scam" and a "goldmine" for organizations like his.
Holy cow! A lobbyist lied!
Here's some more on Ron Fitzsimmons.
Here's some more:
"But the media are being as credulous about Fitzsimmons' new story as they were about his old one. For starters, why did it take him 16 months to retract lies he claims to have immediately regretted?
"Then there's the underplayed fact that Fitzsimmons' mendacity could not possibly have influenced the national debate, because the segments of the Nightline interview in which Fitzsimmons says he lied through his teeth never aired!"
Jay, nice catch on the Randall Terry quote.
Game, I understand your point on this. I am torn between agreeing with you and agreeing with jay. Both have good points. I have a harder time taking the right seriously though. After the child is born the right opposes almost everything that would concern these(sometimes handicapped)children. Often deriding people as "welfare bums" for things that almost no one could actually afford. The radical right so loves the fetus and hates the person that doesn't turn out like them in either intelligence or ability or work ethic or race or creed. This is why I blew of the sanctimonious right a long time ago. I imagine I am not the only one. One should continue to love them the same once they are born.
If one highly values life one should abhor war, necessary or not, not celebrate it and encourage more.
Ron, you really don't make sense...and Jay and Jim who really are not addressing the actual issue...
Ron,
You seem to agree with me, but can't completely because you hate the Right...
And you DON'T hate the left? Get real!
OK, Game. You had several remarks in your blog. Please choose for me which one I MUST respond to.
Thank you so much!
"If one highly values life one should abhor war"
This is about as kitsch as it gets.
Nobody loves war. Republicans hate war, love the environment, health care access, and a quality education. We merely differ on the means of obtaining the good.
Consider peace. A conservative might look at Chamberlain's peace agreement with Hitler at Munich, and argue this led to counterproductive results.
As Marcus Aurelius once emphasized, "look to the essence of a thing, whether it be a point of doctrine, of practice, or of interpretation." This implies judgment. But liberals think the errors of history are caused by discriminating, and the way forward it reject man's religions, philosophies, and forms of government, and not to judge at all.
This, my friends, is folly. One needs to be able to tell friend from foe in this world.
That Gloria Feldt piece from Jay was rather alarmist. It's the typical response from the left, particularly the feminist left, when men of honor attempt to protect the most vulnerable of our species.
As to Jay's shot at Randall Terry, it doesn't surprise me that even one such as him would be confused as to whether or not this procedure is rare or common. Those who support baby-killing purposely mix terms and situations as it suits them. If the procedure is rare, there should be no hue and cry on the level we are now forced to bear. If the procedure is common, we have to look seriously at the cases in question and ask if it was truly necessary to serve any purpose of consequence, such as saving the mother's life (which no one will prevent), or some undefined health problem that will surely scar her psyche for life (end sarcasm here).
Common sense would suggest that if the baby was delivered half way, then any "health issue" would already have manifested and finishing the delivery would cause no further harm. No. I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. But it's a pathetic attempt to deceive to say that there is any other way to look at it. The lib/Dems insist they speak for the little guy. They are liars and this issue is proof.
Ron,
Explain these please:
"The radical right so loves the fetus and hates the person that doesn't turn out like them in either intelligence or ability or work ethic or race or creed."
and
"If one highly values life one should abhor war, necessary or not, not celebrate it and encourage more."
What fantasies are these?
Jim said,
"And you DON'T hate the left?"
We hate what they do. We pity them personally. Paticularly you, whose philosophy is shit.
"If one highly values life one should abhor war"
This is about as kitsch as it gets.
Nobody loves war. Republicans hate war, love the environment, health care access, and a quality education. We merely differ on the means of obtaining the good.
It is comical that you can see this argument but are unable to find any virtue at all in a liberal. I can't find anything to tell me the above is true. Especially listening to the screechers on the radio. I find even less proof after 6 years of total republican rule that you have a way that works to make it happen. When ya gonna do something guys? You make up all kinds of S+it about liberals. You people have no core. You need to alter your communication skills if what I said isn't true because you have convinced the majority of people that is how you are. Again argue it all you want but the radical right is turning into a cult more and more everyday. When someone points it out to you all you do is deny deny deny. Better get out of your denial boys or you are going to be left behind..You did not prove anything to me with your denials. You just reinforced my belief that you don't even understand the concepts that I put forth and have no desire to change them. You are stubborn, authoritarian lovers and nothing in the world, least of all me will change that.
Marshall, maybe you and I can have an adult conversation.
Explain these please:
"The radical right so loves the fetus and hates the person that doesn't turn out like them in either intelligence or ability or work ethic or race or creed."
First understand that I see the radical right and the traditional conservatives like Eisnehower and Goldwater as two different things. I actually think the republican TR was the best President we ever had(and I disagree with some of the things he did). Most of the republicans I could admire have gone to calling themselves libertarians.
It appears to me that the radical right only cares for themselves(yes, I know they are big givers to charity but that is not my point here). It is "pull your bootstraps" and that is about it. They seem to not understand and refuse to discuss that there are some that may not be as intelligent or as brimming with ability or face prejudice. They have no plan and want no plan to integrate these people into OUR society. It's all just some liberal plot or laziness that is causing them to fail.
Halfrican American. That is just one example. Yes, the Halfrican American must be born. Then maybe spend the rest of their life in poverty and be demeaned by drug attled talk show hosts. If all life is precious you would think that would be true after birth as well as before. You would think you would want them to be able to have a good life with the rest of us. You would think people would be looking for solutions for those with roadblocks. Yes some do bypass the road blocks, ones with talent, ability and natural intelligence. Can we help make life meaningful and integrate those of any race or creed that are not so well endowed? Good paying factory jobs helped at one time. Not so many of those left. Yes there are the rotten apples. They are not only in America but all over the world. That is why we have police and jails and rules. If people felt hope and not derision that they could have the life that was promoted and felt like they had a chance to be a contributing member of society I think there would be far fewer of the bad apples.
and
"If one highly values life one should abhor war, necessary or not, not celebrate it and encourage more."
I agree that sometimes war is necessary. If one values life though it should be only in self defense and a last resort at that. It should be derided as an occasionally necessary evil and not a noble endevor. The basest of our character not the highest calling.
To say we will attack them before they attack us even when an attack is not imminent is in my mind encouraging war. One should look to love and not hate to solve the problems of the world. Surely good Christians who bless the prince of peace would understand that? It is a finger in the dike. Many, and perhaps more, innocents are killed in war than combatants. If killing innocents is ok, sometimes necessary, a problem solver, then abortion is perfectly legitimate in some circumstances.
Celebrating war..that to me would be flagwaving,"bring'em on" ,war will solve our problems. It is glorious and noble.
Yes, there are drawbacks to my position. If I didn't know that before I have certainly been made aware of that on these boards. I can't contribute much to the world as a whole. What I can do is set an example and contribute to the call for peace and not the call to war. Should I die doing that I will rest in peace.
Again I repeat, just in case you forgot already, sometimes war is necessary because it is an imperfect world. It, in my mind, should never be taken lightly or resorted to in anything but the most necessary of terms.
Just for the record, whatever I say or have said is just my opinion. I have no more or less a lock on truth than you or anyone else. I have come to be who I am from the teaching of my parents and mostly from living life and examining cause and effect with myself and others. In those terms it is truth to me.
It is interesting to me that we are about the same age and came to such different conclusions. Obviously we lived quite different lives.
Sorry for the nasty snark Jason but maybe you remember some time ago when Game had a piece that said to be a liberal you must believe that......
Lots of stuff that had no relationship to what I understood as my philosophy and I am considered a liberal by most of you. But you all mightly argued that damn straight this is what a liberal HAS to belive.
This is the same deal. What seems so obvious to most of us appears totally foreign to you.
Wow! Wish I didn't have to leave for work! Lots to clarify.
Ron
We get your point about the portrayal of liberals and conservatives.
But there is a big difference, which is:
The right defines the stereotypical liberal based on actual words and actions from the leadership, movers and shakers of the liberal/socialist movement, pundits, and politicians.
The left defines the stereotypical conservative based on words from the leadership, movers, and shakers of the liberal/socialist movement, pundits, and politicians.
Sensing a pattern here?
Ron,
I will agree that, at times, you have much more common sense than the average liberal...
And yes, on this blog there are plenty of times that I am trying to define what I think a liberal is...and yes, not ALL liberals are like that...
And I have a job so I have to stop now...
nope blamin don't get it. What you said makes absolutely no sense to me. I personally find no relationship to reality in what you said...but that's just me.I don't follow. I think for myself thank you..it appears that your moniker is appropriate.
I think we have gotten off my main point that late term abortion is not needed, Jay thought he addressed it but didn't...and then we got into conservative versus liberal and had 10 posts not talking about the issue...
It is smart of the liberals to do this, since they look so bad and wrong defending the murder of a baby
ron--
I merely stated the humble proposition that Republicans have the same goals as liberals, but we believe there are better means of attaining the good.
Why does facing up to this make you angry? It contradicts the fiction of the greedy Republican knuckledragger warmonger the liberal media, Hollywood, and Academia has built for you, that's why.
ron
I don't blame you for not "getting it" you probably "speed read" the post as we all are prone to do.
The point is this: the right is basing its view of the left on the actual words and actions of the left. The left is basings it's views of the right on what other leftist tell them the right's views are.
Undeniably truthfullishness.
Ron,
You seemed to focus on two issues: poverty and war. So I'll work with those.
Poverty is not an issue that the right ignores. As you mentioned, the right is very charitable. Right at this point, that should be enough since the left looks to throwing money at problems, ala, LBJ's Great Society and the gazillions spent to ease the poverty situation since. But the general tax philosophies has a better track record in the overall aid to the general economy and that allows more people to work. I just read of a former Soviet controlled Eastern Bloc country who's name eludes me at present. Since it's independence, it has moved to a flat tax. This move took it from a struggling economy with high unemployment to a veritable boomtown with businesses, including American, moving or investing there. They have lowered the flat tax rate twice since it's original 26% (I think it was) down to around 20% or just under (I don't recall) because of the flood of revenues to the government as well as the incoming business. So this one simple, and I could easily say conservative, action has improved the quality of life in this country and all have benefitted.
However, this is not the end, even if we implemented a flat tax here. This is due to the fact that no conservative seeks the banishment of all aid to the truly needy. More precisely, we'd prefer the states take care of their own, but those in true need won't be forsaken. The trouble is defining the truly needy preventing abuse of the system by the less than truly needy.
So as Jason said, we all care, it's just how we go about getting it done. That being said, the right also supports a return to the values that help to keep poverty rates lower. How we live our lives makes a difference in our individual economies. Those with low morals, lack of discipline and character, these people fall deeper into poverty than those with the proper values education. Strong ties to one's church and church teachings and church community are essential, in my opinion, but the left has belittled such talk and driven it from everyday public discourse. This to the detriment to the entire nation on a multitude of levels, but it's impact on poverty has been as profound as it has in other spheres of society.
Your comments on war lead one to believe you see conservatives as warmongers. More to the truth is that conservatives are more likely to understand when war is properly and justly called for. Conservatives are more likely to deal in concepts of good and evil, as we have with terrorism. Conservatives have no trouble calling Hamas, Hezbollah, AlQueda, etc., evil. We are more likely to understand that just as we are generous with our dough for the sake of those in need of that, we are equally generous with our muscle for the sake of those in need of THAT. Your side tends toward peace at any cost, while ours leans toward liberty, justice and yes, even peace being things worth fighting for. It's certainly a last resort with the right, but the left thinks talking is a good idea long after talking should have ended. That's especially troubling while innocent people are dying. The left thinks we can always reach a compromise with our enemies. The right believes there are those things for which compromise doesn't apply. You want to understand our enemies, we want our enemies to understand what will happen if they don't stop killing people.
So here's a difference that ties back into the topic: The left wants to be allowed to kill their own babies, and the right wants to be allowed to kill our country's enemies. The left wants to be allowed to kill their own babies, the right wants people to keep their pants zipped until they can afford to support the babies they bring into existence.
Marshall,
That last paragraph is so perfect!
It just ties up all the arguments into a perfect, no loose ends, smack you in-the-face, reality check.
I mean, at the risk of being redundant, personal responsibility is not the forte of the left, is it? After all, if one were to teach that concept, the whole house of cards, built on sand, in a swamp deal would fall to the wayside, never to be considered by intelligent human beings again!
Agreed. And I think it's helpful to add that this is not an indictment of individuals. Surely there are those on the right that leave a bit to be desired. But the philosophies and policies of the left are generally such that enable the worst of human nature rather than encourage the most of human beings. Abortion is the perfect example. It's not about a woman's right to choose. Abortion has to do with the consequences of a choice already made. A bad choice. An irresponsible choice considering the ramifications. It says that if you wish to engage in the procreative act simply for sexual gratification, you won't be held liable for the person you've "procreated". We'll just discard him/her. It is the ultimate deflection of personal responsibility and discipline. People of honor and high moral character do not readily indulge themselves in this manner, nor do they consider abortion if they do.
Post a Comment