'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

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

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>

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)

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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?

 

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

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

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

We need to get that law.

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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?

 

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

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>

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!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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.