Abortion

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Maverick74, Jun 1, 2004.

  1. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=15413

    STANEK: Abortion Monsters, Inc.

    Tuesday, June 01, 2004

    By Jill Stanek (Jill@illinoisleader.com)

    Many Americans still hold this view of abortion proponents. But the cover is slowly being torn off to expose their hideous true nature and agenda.

    OPINION -- During a recent interview, I mentioned that I believe one of Planned Parenthood’s objectives is for girls and women to engage in illicit sex as often as possible, so as to increase the odds they’ll get pregnant and have to abort.

    The show host was flabbergasted. I was flabbergasted that he was flabbergasted. I reminded him that Planned Parenthood makes the bulk of its deadlihood - hundreds of millions of dollars every year - from abortion.

    My theory was obviously over the top in this guy’s opinion. The interview ended abruptly.

    The interview reminded me that most people still don’t realize abortion providers are America’s true Monsters, Inc.

    In fact, I think the entire 13 percent of America who are hard-core abortion supporters are monsters, and I’m confident history will bear me out. (Note the percentage is continually shrinking due to attrition at both ends of the membership pool.)

    These are people who believe abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy for any reason, and fetal rights should be denied no matter what. From what I’ve seen, most of these “believers” profit in some way off of abortion.

    These "believers" think that suctioning the brains out of half delivered babies is acceptable, that raising the cleanliness and safety standards of abortion clinics to those of animal clinics is unacceptable, that giving pain relief to preborn babies being torn limb from limb is unacceptable, that a nine-year-old girl aborting without her parents' knowledge is acceptable, and that Connor Peterson's murdered body was not a body at all but a blob.

    But the day is drawing closer when America will understand the devil they’re dealing with.

    During President Bush’s tenure thus far, abortion proponents have been struck three serious blows. Two more are on the way, if and only if the President is reelected and both Houses of Congress remain under Republican control.

    In 2002, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law to stop abortion from progressing to infanticide. In 2003, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was passed to stop the most egregious form of abortion conceived to date. In 2004, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act established the personhood of preborn babies for the first time, for the purposes of federal criminal law.

    Now, the Child Custody Protection Act, which would make it illegal for anyone other than a parent to take a minor across state lines to abort, has passed in the House and is in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    And on May 20, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act was introduced in both the House and Senate. This bill would mandate that abortionists tell mothers aborting over 20 weeks gestation that their babies will feel the pain of the abortion and to either accept or refuse pain relief for their baby while he or she is being aborted.

    These bills accomplish three goals. First, they save babies’ lives. Second, they go around abortion obfuscators to educate the American public about the reality of abortion and personhood of preborn babies. Third, they expose those fanatical abortion-supporting monsters.

    The monsters cannot stop themselves from wildly shrieking when even the most rational, least intrusive pro-life measure is attempted to clamp America’s abortion hemorrhage. The monsters live off that blood.

    But, over time, as poll after poll indicates, Americans are becoming immune to the shrieks and listening instead to the calm voices of reason.

    Someday, all children will be safe from those monsters. Daniel predicted in Daniel 7:11, “Then, as I watched, the monster was killed and its body cremated in a roaring fire.”

    It’s interesting that some abortionists incinerate aborted babies on site.
     
  2. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040601/D82UEQC00.html

    Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

    Jun 1, 4:55 PM (ET)

    By DAVID KRAVETS

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a ruling with coast-to-coast effect, a federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it infringes on a woman's right to choose.

    U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.

    She agreed with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend.

    "The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," the judge wrote.

    The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform about half the 1.3 million abortions done each year in the United States.

    Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.

    Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a "strong message" to the Bush administration "that the government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions."

    In a statement, the Bush re-election campaign said: "Today's tragic ruling upholding partial birth abortion shows why America needs judges who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. ... John Kerry's judicial nominees would similarly frustrate the people's will and allow this grotesque procedure to continue."

    Justice Department spokeswoman Monica Goodling said the government "will continue to devote all resources necessary to defend this act of Congress, which President Bush has said 'will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America.'"

    The Kerry campaign had no immediate comment.

    The law, signed in November, represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion. Abortion rights activists said it ran counter to three decades of Supreme Court precedent.

    It a banned procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction, but called "partial-birth abortion" by foes of abortion. During the banned procedure, the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

    Justice Department attorneys argued the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary. A government lawyer told the judge that it "blurs the line of abortion and infanticide."

    Abortion proponents argued, however, that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often safer than a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

    In her ruling, the judge said it was "grossly misleading and inaccurate" to suggest the banned procedure verges on infanticide.

    Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, the chief sponsor of the House bill, said the banned abortion method "has no place in a civilized society," and predicted the Supreme Court would decide the outcome.

    "Regardless of this decision from San Francisco, partial-birth abortion remains a horrific practice that snuffs out innocent life seconds before the baby takes its first breath," Chabot said.

    The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion.

    Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.

    Late last year, Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, and federal judges in New York and Lincoln, Neb., blocked the act from being enforced pending the outcome of the court challenges. They began hearing testimony March 29.

    Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health.

    The Nebraska and New York cases are expected to conclude within weeks. The outcomes, which may conflict with one another, will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The New York case was brought by the National Abortion Federation, which represents nearly half the nation's abortion providers. The Nebraska case was brought by a few abortion doctors.

    The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned a Nebraska partial-birth abortion law because it did not allow the banned procedure even when a doctor believes the method is the best way to preserve the woman's health.

    Congressional sponsors said the ban would outlaw only 2,200 or so abortions a year.

    But abortion providers testified the banned method can happen even at times when doctors try to avoid it, such as when they attempt to remove the fetus from the womb in pieces.

    They warned that the law could be used to ban almost all second-trimester abortions, which account for about 10 percent of all abortions in the United States.
     
  3. Pabst

    Pabst

    Perhaps in the near future it will be imperative to abort the likes of U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton. WTF: "Choose" to smoke a joint, "Choose" to bet the Rams 3 over, "Choose" to get a blow job from a call girl and your ass is in jail. However "Choose" to assassinate a fetus and the Federal judiciary is lining up protecting you under any and all circumstances. This is a clear libertarian issue. The un-born HAVE RIGHTS TOO!

    No doubt the reason we see infanticide on the rise is because women are thinking "hey a month ago I could have killed this kid legally, so what's the big deal, I'm just extending the law a tad bit."
     
  4. Turok

    Turok

    Pabst:
    >No doubt the reason we see infanticide on the rise is
    >because women are thinking "hey a month ago I could
    >have killed this kid legally, so what's the big deal, I'm
    >just extending the law a tad bit."

    Yes doubt.

    JB
     
  5. Turok

    Turok

  6. "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
    Ecclesiastes 6:3-5
    "And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
    Exodus 21:22-25
     
  7. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/05/31/20040531_081402_flash4.htm

    ABORTION SOARS IN QUEST FOR PERFECT BABIES
    Daily Mail
    Sun May 6, 2004 23:30:03 ET

    Those with conditions that can usually be corrected medically - such as deformed feet and cleft lips and palates - are instead being terminated.

    And the number of abortions of Down's syndrome babies now outstrips live births, despite the fact that those with the condition can live a long and fulfilling life. As screening techniques improve, the trend is likely to grow - horrifying pro-life campaigners.

    'These figures are symptomatic of a eugenic trend of the consumerist society hell-bent on obliterating deformity - and at what cost to its own humanity? ' said ethicist Jacqueline Laing, of London Metropolitan University. 'We are obliterating the willingness of people to accept disability. Babies are required to fit a description of normality before they are allowed to be born.'

    The figures for 2002 - the latest available - from the Office for National Statistics show more women than ever are choosing to terminate babies with potential handicaps, with such abortions rising 8 per cent in a year.

    It has renewed fears that strict laws on termination due to disabilities are being flouted by doctors.

    The 2002 figures show five babies were aborted because they had deformed feet, and a sixth because of a cleft lip and palate.

    In 2000 and 2001, nine babies were aborted due to cleft lip and palate, while a further two were aborted for cleft lip alone.

    Church of England curate Joanna Jepson, who has spearheaded calls for an investigation into the abortion of a 28-week-old unborn baby with cleft palate in Herefordshire in 2001, said: 'These statistics are horrifying and show the highly consumerist attitude which is now pervading human relationships.

    'I don't think anyone had any idea that so many babies had been aborted for cleft lip and palate. The fact that two were aborted for cleft lip alone is a slur on people with the condition.

    'I cannot believe the medical profession are standing by decisions to abort babies for these reasons.'

    Delayed motherhood may be partly responsible for rising birth defects, because women over 40 have the highest risk of congenital abnormality in their babies.

    Doctors say improvements in technology, such as ultra-sound and blood tests, have helped increase the number of babies diagnosed with abnormality before birth. But a number are disturbed that abortions are being carried out on the grounds of the baby's serious disability when in fact it has a correctable condition such as feet abnormality or cleft lip.

    Ground E of the Abortion Act makes termination legal up to nine months if a child has a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality.

    A total of 1,863 pregnancies were ended in 2002 on this basis - up 8 per cent from the 1,722 carried out in 2001, according to ONS data from the National Congenital Anomaly System.

    Experts say it is likely that many exceeded the 24-week limit for terminations for socalled 'social' reasons. Most of the estimated 185,000 abortions in Britain every year are on 'social' grounds.

    Two doctors must judge that the risk to the woman's physical or mental health of continuing the pregnancy outweighs the dangers of termination.

    In reality, this means women who do not want to have a baby are able to easily terminate it. Only around one per cent of abortions are carried out beyond the 24-week limit, generally due to deformities.

    Terminations for chromosomal abnormalities, including Down's syndrome, rose by 17 per cent - from 591 in 2001 to 691 in 2002.

    There were more babies with Down's aborted than born with the condition in 2002, with 372 terminations compared with 329 births.

    The NHS was last year told to offer Down's screening to women of all ages - including those in younger age groups with lower risks of the condition - prompting fears that figures for last year will be even higher.

    The charity LIFE said it fears women may come under increased pressure if their unborn babies are judged to have special needs.

    Trustee Nuala Scarisbrick said: 'This is straightforward eugenics. The message is being sent out to disabled people that they should not have been born. It is appalling and abhorrent.'

    Campaigner Patrick Cusworth said: 'Such statistics are an indictment of a society which places a conditional value upon its citizens, based upon how "useful" they may prove to be in later life.'

    Consultant obstetrician Maggie Blott said although the reasons for the increase in Ground E abortions are not clear, it may be partly due to screening and partly to older mothers.

    Women aged 40 to 44 have the highest rate of abnormalities such as spina bifida, heart defects and Down's syndrome in live and still births, at 160 per 10,000. This compares with 107 per 10,000 in those aged 25 to 27.

    Mrs Blott, of the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle upon Tyne, said: 'You have to give women a choice and most people feel screening is a good thing.

    'If a baby with a heart problem is diagnosed before birth, doctors can be ready when it is born and ensure it gets the best treatment.

    'Some serious abnormalities do not become apparent on ultrasound until later in the pregnancy - these include some kidney problems.

    'It is likely that most of the abortions in this report were after 24 weeks, because before that, you could get an abortion without needing a reason such as a physical deformity.

    'I personally don't think cleft lip counts as a serious abnormality. The Abortion Act is very clear that is has to be life-threatening really, and nobody could describe a cleft lip as life-threatening. The same goes for deformities of the feet.'

    Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, said techniques to detect foetal abnormalities have become very sophisticated, giving women more information on which to base decisions.

    'Ending a wanted pregnancy because of serious foetal abnormality is a difficult decision for the woman,' she added. 'It is vital she receives support and guidance to make the right decision for her and her family.'
     
  8. well

    give a thought to it that people wouldnt abort their children if there was a scarcity of people.

    some animals protect their kids hard, some of em kick em out of the nest when they should know how to fly. some eat half of their children.

    I see this as a natural process....

    good thing people can abort kids so early they dont feel squat yet, better then letting a 3 year old walk alone in the street cause it should be time to be able to ;)

    Tiki
     
  9. First of all, the issue of whether or not a fetus is a sentient human life is unanswered scientifically, so the issue is a moral one.

    Science can't begin to effectively deal with the issue of "soul" so the concept of "when the soul enters the body" is entirely a religious issue, and religion should have no play in the state determining what a woman man do with her body.

    What I see is that some people favor giving the state the right to end the life of criminals, i.e. capital punishment.

    These same people also view killing the enemy in a war as not only acceptable, but right. The ending of the life of a soldier by "friendly" fire is quite OK with them, as well as the innocent lives lost during a military conflict.

    So it is not the actual ending or termination of a life that is deemed bad, it is the motivation, or the decision of what life should be terminated.

    I am 99.9999% against abortion and 100% in favor of giving women the right to choose to have birth when the pregnancy is unwanted....so if push comes to shove I will favor the right to choose.

    Imagine a man told that he has to be sterilized because of population issues.....like they would do in China.

    The point is that if the state is going to decide who has the right to live or die (if abortion is in fact a termination of human life) then the state should be making their decision on purely scientific and secular reasons, and on moral conclusions devoid of religious bias.

    I don't see this happening, as the right to lifers are motivated almost exclusively by their religious belief systems.
     
  10. if a pregnancy is unwanted, the resulting child would not be properly cared for. most likely would become future criminals.

    during the 90's, most states experienced a suddent crime rate drop. most of the police department took it like its their new tatics were working in real life. it coincides with the decision of roe v wade in 1973. those would be criminals did not exist because abortion was legalized during that period. in the case if abortion is outlawed, people will till resort to the back ally practices.

    whats your take?
     
    #10     Jun 2, 2004