[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/616506/posts[/url]
Back in the 60s and 70s the lefties femanists and their ilk...often refered to returning combat vets as "baby killers"..this guy is like a machine...a baby "terminator"...stone cold...Hitler and the nazis would have been proud imo

From the AMA:

[url]http://www.ama-assn.org/special/womh/library/readroom/vol_280a/jsc80006.htm[/url]

Read it if you dare.
Guns should be banned, but this should not?  [puke]

Ok, now that I am sufficiently sick, what was the point of posting this?  The doc is obviously not like you and I, maybe he should be an OB in Mogadishu!  Let him ply his trade over there!  

Keep in mind this procedure is done only after a court hearing grants the doctor permission to do this in order to save the woman.  I'm all for it, but there's no chance in hell that I'd do it or watch it again.  They showed this on PBS once, it was the only thing that effected me mentally outside of being on g-zero on 9/11.  Does that put it in perspective?

Ghastly.  

I first heard about this from an entemology professor to our little group at church.  Even though he was a very credible source, the procedure sounded so ghoulish that it could not possibly be happening in this country.  Not even the Nazis admitted stuff like this.

A few months later it became public knowledge and I beleived it would crush the whole abortion-on-demand cause.  When it passed every legal test and became a litmus test for Democratic party candidates, I have to admit losing faith and effort in the whole prolife movement.  

Remember now, "Its a choice, not a child."  Repeat it until you beleive it.

What a sickening read.

Excuse me while I wander off to ponder about what the fuck is wrong with this world.

It is sick that a so called Dr. is willing to do this.  There is no end to the cruelty that humans are capable of.

I will never understand the liberal mindset.

That example is sick, no question. Regardless, I'm pro-choice. I'd post my reasons for why I am but like religious threads, that accomplishes nothing.

The example linked in this post is definately at a point in pregnancy that I don't think should be allowed, except in cases of rape, incest or potentially fatal childbirth to the mother.

God help this nation for tolerating this for so long.

No. Dismembering a fetus is not "pro-choice".  Don't try to rationalize this one away [b]M4[/b].  I'd think you'd be more logical than this.  

If it's a [u]ghastly-savage-murder[/u] to do it to a "non-rape/incest" fetus, why does it suddenly become [u]merely a choice[/u] for a "rape/incest" fetus?  What does the circumstances of a baby's conception have to do with whether it has any more right to continue it's natural development.

Where is the [b]logic[/b] of this?

Excuse me while I go and puke....

[left]Just think that those kids he has killed; Think of what they would of been? most of this is because "Iam NOT ready to take
responsability" or "Iam too young!" or "I cannot afford kids right now" is this the pro choice usually the choice of killing a kid goes to a point of nonsense excuses![/left]

I got as far as him ripping th arm off a LIVE baby. What a sick twisted MF. This should be stopped "for the children". OOpps forgot the left doesn't consider them children yet.

The "point" (as far as I'm concerned) was/is to demonstrate (yet again) what I, (and many others such as William Bennett, Alan Keyes ect.) believe to be the intrinsic link between the right to keep and bear arms and the right to life. It is no coincidence that almost without exception those in positions of power who deny the right to life also deny the right to keep and bear arms. One reason they do this is because they believe there is no power greater than themselves, (pretensions aside) the "State". Thus, they are the "gods" of life and death, and they determine who has rights and who does not.
"If abortion is not wrong, than nothing is wrong." Mother Teresa.
If there is no right to life, than there are no rights at all. And since the government has in fact made this determination, it really was no big step to further come to the conclusion that you don't have a right to your own money, or your property, that you don't have a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures or freedom of speech (hate thought or "crime") or to keep and bear arms, ect. The Founders foretold that if one right was ever usurped, all the rest would in short order be vanquished.

There was a bill introduced by a Republican congressman about a year and a half that was meant to protect those babies that survived the attempted abortion and where now outside the womb. Planned Butcherhood came out against the bill claiming that it was just an attempt to "deny reproductive rights". That is how far we have fallen.

[url]www.lewrockwell.com/e-cobb/e-cobb19.html[/url]

Not so. The "procedure", as you say, is done thousands of times a year in this country and without any "court hearing".


"We are a people that believe in basic rights. We believe in self government by consent. That didn't just happen. It happened on the basis of certain principles. And those principles state very clearly that the basis of human rights is not human will or choice but God's will, the Creator's will.
That means that if we reject that principle we are destroying the essence of our whole way of life. And that is what is involved in abortion when we assert that a human choice, the choice of the mother, determines the childs right to life. That cannot be true in light of our American principles."
Alan Keyes


or as C.S. Lewis put it,
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation."

[b]When does the heart begin to beat?[/b]
At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother.


[b]When is the brain functioning?[/b]
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG).


[b]When does the developing baby first move?[/b]
"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part."
At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus."

[b]When are all his body systems present?[/b]
By eight weeks.


[b]How about nine weeks?[/b]
At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist.
By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand."

[b]When does he start to breathe?[/b]
"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid within his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration."

[b]Can he cry?[/b]
Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor

". . . injected an air bubble into the baby’s amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby’s face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby’s head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself upright with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby’s head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus."

[b]Does the unborn baby dream?[/b]
Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks.
REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception.

[b]Does he/she think?[/b]
We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life.
The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero.

[b]Can he/she feel pain?[/b]
Yes, by the 8th week and perhaps earlier. By this age the neuroanatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present by 8 weeks. Without doubt a abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant.


[b]What of The Silent Scream?[/b]
A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600).

[url=http://www.abortiontv.com/ForbiddenPicture.htm]The Forbidden Picture[/url]

How Killing Became a “Right”
Joseph Sobran

January 15, 2002
Nearly three decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutionally protected. Ostensibly libertarian, the ruling was actually one of the most tyrannical acts in American history.

What greater power can the state claim than the power to redefine human life itself — to withdraw protection from an entire category of human beings? And what greater power could the Federal Government usurp than the power of the individual states to protect innocent life from violent death?

The pro-abortion movement has been consistent only in its inconsistency. It began by agreeing with its opponents that abortion was wrong, but arguing that abortion, when banned by law, “happens anyway” and could be better regulated — made “safe” — if legalized. Of course this could be said of any crime: murder, burglary, and incest, though banned by law, “happen anyway.” Should they too be legalized?

Later the pro-abortion propaganda apparat took a new position: that when life begins is a “religious” question, beyond the competence of the state to decide. Oddly enough, my Darwinian public-school biology teachers used to answer the question without consulting their Bibles: life began at conception. Frog life, bovine life, human life. But in those days nobody had any axes to grind, so nobody denied or evaded the obvious. “When does life begin?” became a mystery only with the emergence of a political interest in killing the unborn.

Still later, the pro-abortion — alias “pro-choice” — crowd decided that abortion, far from being a necessary evil, was a positive good, which the state should not only tolerate but support, encourage, subsidize, maximize. Taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortions. They should have no more “choice” than the child.

How did the pro-abortion position evolve from the necessary evil position to the positive good position? Easy. The Court arbitrarily ruled that the U.S. Constitution shelters abortion. Did the Court cite any passage in the Constitution saying so? No. Did it find any evidence that the Framers hoped to protect abortion? No. Did it name any justice of the Court, even the most liberal, who had ever claimed constitutional protection for abortion before 1973? No. It merely discovered, all of a sudden, that the abortion laws of all 50 states had been violating the Constitution all along, even when nobody suspected it.

This fantastic ruling generated a new debate about the “original intent” of the Constitution. Liberals argued that “original intent” didn’t matter or was unknowable anyway. The Constitution didn’t have a single fixed meaning; it “evolved” over time. Any interpretation was bound to be more or less “subjective” — yet somehow the Court’s subjective rulings had the binding force of law.

This amounted to saying that the Constitution means whatever today’s liberal interpreters choose to say it means. If that were so, there would be no point in having a written constitution, or for that matter any written law. We would be defenseless against legal sophistry, especially the sophistry of self-aggrandizing power. That’s the perfect prescription for tyranny, the opposite of the rule of law.

(cont.)

Anti-abortion forces thought they had a winning issue when they raised the subject of the agony the aborted child may suffer, as rendered visible in films of aborted fetuses. The pro-abortion crowd replied — when they didn’t just ignore the question — that nobody really knew whether abortion caused pain. But when the issue of late-term (or “partial-birth”) abortion emerged, it transpired that they didn’t care at all whether a fully developed baby suffered when its skull was crushed and evacuated.

The Court agreed. It had originally made quibbling distinctions among first, second, and third trimesters of pregnancy, holding that a state might protect a child in the third trimester, when it had achieved “viability” and was capable of living outside the womb. But now the viability pretext was discarded. Killing the unborn was constitutionally protected at every stage between conception and live birth.

Right from the start, the pro-abortion movement has been defined by shifting arguments, fallacies, evasions, lame excuses, and utter bad faith. The Court has not only acted as part of that movement, but has been its greatest asset, sparing it the need for persuasion by imposing its arbitrary will on the entire United States — and in the name of the Constitution it actually despises.

Abortion pisses me off to no end. I got sick just reading the replies here about the development of the child and thinking that someone could just end a life like that. My sister had an abortion (I didn' know until just a few years ago) and my wife had one long before we met.
It doesn't make it right.

If you play, you pay. Sex is a choice. If you don't want children, don't have sex. and it applies to both guys and girls.
Abortion is sanctioned murder.

[smoke]

Totally revulsed by abortion.

Am I wrong in thinking that there is a lucrative trade in the bodies of aborted babies?

Bye and bye, God's patience runs out with countries that massacre the innocent, and he hammers them.

We better leave off this vicious nonsense before the Wrath of God catches up with.

--------
You baby killing Liberals can go to hell. [bday]