Update (Feb. 9; 11:15 EST): Apparently the Buffalo News updated the story and the link I gave in my lede goes to a follow-up story. I wasn't able to find the exact article I was writing about, but here is a link to an updated story from Feb. 6 by Armario, entitled: "Botched abortion outrages pro-life, pro-choice factions."
"Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion," reads the headline for an AP story syndicated on the Web site for The Buffalo News.
Yet according to the story by writer Christine Armario, the abortion procedure had not been initiated and hence could not have been botched. (h/t e-mail tipster Paul Head)
What did, happen, allegedly, is one count of infanticide (emphases mine):
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.
[...]
An autopsy determined Williams' baby - she named her Shanice - had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity.
The Department of Health believes Renelique committed malpractice by failing to ensure that licensed personnel would be present when Williams was there, among other missteps.
So why the inaccurate, misleading headline when something along the lines of "Fla. abortion doctor investigated following infanticide" would more accurately convey the main idea of the horrifying story?
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ken, I just read this
February 5, 2009 - 16:41 ET by BlondeWTH?
23 weeks and this is the headline? Badly botched abortion.
They ought to charge this "Dr." and his assistant with murder.
Dollars to donuts this guy is a Haitian, and most likely illegal.
I don't think I've ever read anything so sad.
Why Haitian?
February 5, 2009 - 17:31 ET by 5kidsnadogThere's a guy in Kansas who will give an abortion no matter what the age of the infant.
As for me, I think you need only look at the arms, legs, and face, of the "collection of cells" that emerges from an abortion. Do these features grow on cantaloupe?
I have a strong faith, but belief that abortion is murder does not stem from that. One need only watch a very early term infant suck it's thumb to know that if it has enough sensation to gain pleasure from thumb-sucking, then it has enough sensation to feel having it's arms and legs ripped from it's body.
Anyone who chooses, of all the beautiful and kind acts one can perform in this life, to perform or participate abortions, has my vote as a sociopath.
I am anxiously awaiting the day that genetic testing allows us to test for idiot -- we can wipe out liberalism in one generation.
George Tiller
February 5, 2009 - 17:42 ET by lotrHis name is George R. Tiller.
He makes a comfortable living off "providing late-term abortions," and unless the Author of Life miraculously intervenes, he has earned himself, in all likelihood, a one-way ticket to Hell.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
I once fell asleep with the TV on and was
February 5, 2009 - 18:27 ET by 5kidsnadogawoken by a young woman telling the story of her abortion at the hands of Mr. Tiller. She described how her family took her over state lines because she was so far along. She describes the fear, the pain, the uncaring attitude of all involved. I have never been able to get the vision out of my mind that came from her describing how they sat her on a toilet to labor and that the baby was delivered into the toilet bowl. As soon as she delivered, they took her from the room. Her last sight of her baby was that of an infant discarded in a toilet. She then went on to tell of the years following this abortion where she became even more promiscuous, drank, and used drugs. She did not recover until she dealt with the trauma exacted at the hands of this "caring" man.
That is the real story of abortion, and I have seen it repeated over and over again. What scares me are the ones who feel nothing -- those girls are not redeemable as they are sociopaths, and nothing can make them feel.
I think it's rather
February 5, 2009 - 20:39 ET by JasonCI think it's rather reductive to suggest that one emotionally-coercive story constitutes the "real story of abortion." This story particularly hinges on the suggestion that the pregnant woman was compelled by family to have the procedure done, which, you would do well to note, is not part of the liberal argument for pro-choice policies. The argument is that it is, indeed, a choice.
As to the denouement, that the mother devolved into self-destructive behavior, it has been recently demonstrated that there is no causal or correlative link between abortion and depression; see Blum, Charles, et al. of Johns Hopkins (2008).
And I think it's, well, interesting...
February 5, 2009 - 22:09 ET by Mike Bratton...to cite one year-old study (which was nothing more than a review team browsing other studies) to make the suggestion that the "science is settled," to coin a phrase. Interesting, though, that the Johns Hopkins synopsis you cite as ending the discussion doesn't include a recent Bowling Green University study, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, that demonstrated the abortion-depression link exists.
As well, it didn't cover a New Zealand study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry that found women who have abortions to be at increased risk of developing mental health problems as a result of killing their children.
Speaking of the British Journal of Psychiatry, a University of Queensland study found women who have abortions to be much more likely to have alcohol or drug problems later in life.
I never enjoy spoiling a good denoument, except when folks take the "science is settled" path to the exclusion of conflicting data.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
I certainly didn't mean to
February 5, 2009 - 22:29 ET by JasonCI certainly didn't mean to imply that the matter was settled; rather, I wanted to introduce a counter-argument to the one, highly-selective and emotionally manipulative story that the previous poster cited as "the real story on abortion", and to reference the most recent major study on the topic.
Thank you for your post though, it's nice to see someone else being rational and referencing reputable sources.
Jason.. the evidence that
February 5, 2009 - 22:41 ET by celatorJason.. the evidence that post-abortion psychological and physical trauma exists, probably in most cases, is overwhelming.
The Catholic Church sponsors Project Rachel, a nation-wide service for women who have undergone abortion to help them heal and recover. There may be similar services offered by other Christian and Jewish agencies as well.
Here is the website for you and others who may want to learn about Project Rachel, and reach out to offer help if possible.
http://www.hopeafter...
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
Thanks, Jason.
February 6, 2009 - 14:51 ET by Mike BrattonI do my best.
And I'm glad to hear you have an open mind on the subject; the wording on your last post suggested to me that you considered that synopsis to be the definitive word on the subject. Glad you don't feel that way.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Th Real Deal
February 6, 2009 - 22:36 ET by CobraManI wanted to introduce a counter-argument to the one, highly-selective
and emotionally manipulative story that the previous poster cited as
"the real story on abortion"
It IS the real story on abortion, one of many. It's not an metaphor, it's reality. I think you're just upset with the effect this story may have on people, especially young, impressionable women, the ones who have the majority of abortions. You call it "emotionally manipulative" because it describes the negative aspects of abortion, something you wish to avoid.
That "infant discarded in a toilet" description is a pretty powerful image, is it not? Especially since that is what REALLY happened. Now, counter that with the image that a fetus is "just tissue," like most abortion proponents like to argue. Suddenly that "just tissue" argument begins to reveal itself to be the false story on abortion, does it not?
Add that story to the one posted here and you begin to see the HUMAN side of abortions. But, wait, a fetus isn't supposed to be human now, is it?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
And it's a lame argument
February 5, 2009 - 22:17 ET by lotrRape is a choice. Homicide is a choice. Tax evasion is a choice. Breaking the speed limit is a choice. And, yes, abortion is also a choice. It does not follow that abortion should thus be legal.
Why is it so difficult to understand that it is precisely because it is a legal choice that women like this, statistically speaking, are being coerced into "choosing" abortion?
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
lotr, that's a legitimate,
February 5, 2009 - 22:38 ET by JasonClotr, that's a legitimate, albeit shopworn, comparative analogy. But it is not relevant to the issue at hand. We are not discussing legality. I am criticizing the original claim that this bathos-laden story is in fact a realistic abortion narrative, despite the fact that much of its impact derives from the mother being basically forced into it. Even the staunchest pro-abortion rights advocate would not be in favor of women being given abortions without their full, express consent. On this point, pro-choice and pro-life factions are on the same page.
"Even the staunchest
February 6, 2009 - 11:13 ET by danebramage"Even the staunchest pro-abortion rights advocate would not be in favor
of women being given abortions without their full, express consent."
Oh, really? How do you know this? Do you have a "study" showing it? How do you know there's not some staunch pro-abortion rights advocate hiding in Minnesota somewhere who'd like to track down women with more than, say, a single baby, and abort their next one(s) in order to (for example) prevent overpopulation? The answer is, you don't know, and the fact moreover is that there are plenty of such people around. The eugenic impulse did not die at Dachau. It's just not as openly expressed these days, except in the writings of Peter Singer and others. (Oh, and I guess there's your one guy. How about that?)
Anyway, back to the subject: Without reading the study you cited, let me guess what it does. It attempts to dissociate abortion from feelings of guilt and then argue that abortion per se does not cause depression. If women just didn't feel that they were snuffing out the life of an innocent human being, it suggests, they would suffer no depression after an abortion because they would suffer no guilt. To which I and every kindergartner around answer, "Duh." Tell us something we don't already know. The problem is that the guilt has wholly natural origins; it's not implanted from without by society. It arises from within, from the intuitive understanding women naturally possess that their babies are a) alive, and b) human--for, really, what else could they be? Thus, the guilt engendered by it can't be arbitrarily dissociated from the abortive act. (It's true that sociopathic and/or determined individuals can sometimes suppress such feelings, but such suppression is hardly healthy.)
And if that's not the ground your scientists in fact base their claim on, that would only make it all the more preposterous, because it is clearly not true.
Live births from abortions
February 7, 2009 - 07:15 ET by GrannyGrump42Live births from abortions are literally an everyday occurrence. Most of the time the babies are just put aside to die without any drama. What made this situation leap out at people is the fact that for some reason, a staff member at the clinic was so freaked out that she called the cops, AND the national media decided, for whatever flukey reason, to pick up the story.
Raymond Showery drowned a surviving baby in front of numerous clinic staff, who were outraged and went to the cops. He was prosecuted for murder. He appealed, went right back to his abortion hospital, and went blithely about his business until he let Mickey Apodaca bleed to death.
William Waddill strangled a surviving baby in front of a horrified cluster of NICU nurses and one shocked pediatrician. Somebody went to the cops. Waddill beat the rap on the grounds that California had an obscure definition of "death" that his defense attorney managed to convince a juror to turn into "reasonable doubt" -- sure, he strangled a 32-week baby in front of multiple expert witnesses; sure the cause of death was manual strangulation, but did Waddill cause the baby's "death" according to this obscure definition?
The last time the CDC made any public admission about live births, it was that there were roughly 400 a year reported. Willard Cates added that this was a gross underreporting because, he pointed out, "it's like turning yourself in to the IRS for an audit" to tell health authorities that you let a baby survive an abortion.
This happens literally every day. The babies are set aside to die, then thrown away with the biohazard waste.
And until anybody gives a happy s**t, it'll keep being an everyday occurrence. And it's the champions of "choice" -- who are so enamored of the practice of abortion that a couple of hundred murders like this are a trivial price to pay for the joys of over a million babies successfully snuffed before they draw breath, who are keeping it an everyday occurrence.
Why?
February 5, 2009 - 18:29 ET by BlondeHis name of course.
→ Best of intentions
February 5, 2009 - 16:41 ET by Cool ArrowThis is Obama's view on Abortion in a nutshell.
Whatever was intended upon entering the room is what's important.
Who the hell are we to condemn a people who said "Let His blood be upon us and upon our children. Give us Barabas"
CA
February 5, 2009 - 17:24 ET by lotrGreat biblical passage adapted to the situation we find ourselves in today -- I liked it when you posted it (as if a warning) prior to the election.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
→ Thanks, lotr
February 5, 2009 - 17:28 ET by Cool ArrowI get a sick feeling every time I feel prompted to post it.
But I truly believe we've chosen barabas over the covering Grace of God.
Cool
February 5, 2009 - 17:52 ET by choselife3x"The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground" is what comes to mind for me. All those innocent babies.
You are an angry person.
-Queen Mum (Who knew she was funny? I didn't)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
cl3x
February 5, 2009 - 18:05 ET by sherylsimsLOVE the new tagline... (BTW, for an angry person you cover it very well. I just thought you were having fun.) But now that I know you are angry, well...
Be afraid
February 5, 2009 - 18:50 ET by choselife3xBe VERY afraid. :-O
You are an angry person.
-Queen Mum (Who knew she was funny? I didn't)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
cl3x
February 5, 2009 - 18:52 ET by sherylsimsAnd I believe that is also called "Transferrence" am I right?
Transference?
February 5, 2009 - 19:01 ET by choselife3xShe also said I was "holier-than-thou".
ROFL!! She should be a liberal.
You are an angry person.
-Queen Mum (Who knew she was funny? I didn't)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Keep the change!
February 5, 2009 - 17:42 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsNow, now, now, calm down. Obama says this is NOT murder, just the
unburdening of Sycloria Williams troubles. She is now free to engage
with sex with as many partners as she wants (like Obama's parents) and
either have the children (and abandon them later, like Obama's
parents), or abort them. That's change you can believe in!
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
dftt ... Love the sarcasm
February 5, 2009 - 17:55 ET by LionKingChange indeed.
[ Too bad Obama won't be honest and tell the blacks
and the poor the dirty little secret about abortion . ]
That's Murder
February 5, 2009 - 16:43 ET by SupermanThat's murder and the doctor should be charged. But I doubt that he will be.
Countless Murders
February 5, 2009 - 17:23 ET by bradbenj5952All of it is murder and all doctors who do such things will ultimately be charged.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Pretty Disgusting
February 5, 2009 - 16:48 ET by guttermouthFigures that this would happen in Florida. I hope everyone goes to jail. This is why we have abortion laws.
What's your problem with Florida?
February 5, 2009 - 17:03 ET by BlondeYou get kicked out of Disney World for that gutter mouth of yours, or somesuch?
America's Punchline?
February 5, 2009 - 17:06 ET by guttermouthNothing against Florida. I have family there and I used to live there myself. Hell, I even worked at Disney for 2 whole days about 15 years ago.
America's armpit?
February 5, 2009 - 17:23 ET by BlondeRiiiight....California.
Thankfully, you're no longer in Florida.
Some say
February 5, 2009 - 17:29 ET by guttermouthYou're not hurting my feelings. I'm no native.
Oh no! We hurt
February 7, 2009 - 07:12 ET by bretzysdudeOh no! We hurt guttermouth's feelings! Hopefully that means she'll leave!
HOW ARE ALL YOUR KIDS DOING?
February 7, 2009 - 07:13 ET by bretzysdudeHOW ARE ALL YOUR KIDS DOING?
Blonde
February 5, 2009 - 17:31 ET by sherylsimsGo easy on California. It isn't OUR fault that gm says she lives here.
No worries, sheryl
February 5, 2009 - 17:32 ET by BlondeI like California...it's too bad it's a loon magnet, though.
Just couldn't let that stupid Florida dig stand on its own.
It is indeed a loon magnet.
February 5, 2009 - 17:41 ET by sherylsimsIt is indeed a loon magnet. And also too expensive anymore. But still, great weather, mountains, deserts and oceans all within an hour or so drive from here. (And we try to keep our distance from the loons). I wouldn't mind moving to the midwest. But for now, California is where the job is.
Howdy sheryl... All
February 5, 2009 - 18:01 ET by bigtimerHowdy sheryl...
All states have there share of loons, some more than others.
Unfortunately.
Loons
February 5, 2009 - 18:10 ET by sherylsimsYeah, and I can handle the kind that are here. It is what I am used to. I was born here and so was my dad and grandad... uh oh, maybe I am one of em... I think if you are a loon you wouldn't know it. Oh dear. Is there a test I can take? If you ask any of my kids they would probably say I am. Does that mean they will be too? Should I be worried?
gm... Wow... I completely
February 5, 2009 - 18:15 ET by bigtimergm...
Wow... I completely agree with you...I hope all go to jail too.
...but they won't.
MURDER
February 5, 2009 - 16:48 ET by Tom in NCThis is murder plain and simple, no if's and's or but's, everyone and I mean EVERYONE involved needs to be behind bars, with the exception of the mother, who I believe once she saw the child did not want it killed.
The abortion industry is as barbaric as the Nazi Death Camps were in WWII
Pretty Disgusting
February 5, 2009 - 16:50 ET by guttermouthFigures that this would happen in Florida. I hope everyone goes to jail. This is why we have abortion laws.
That's the problem gutter there are no abortion laws
February 5, 2009 - 17:07 ET by Dee Bunkhad this same baby been killed before birth one day earlier then it's A okay with your liberal politicians
You'd be surprised by who I choose to support
February 5, 2009 - 17:16 ET by guttermouthBut I am 100% pro abortion. Not even pro choice, but pro abortion. My views on the issue are not based around a religious belief, as many seem to be. I do however believe there should be laws in place, and it's surprising Florida doesn't have any. Even California has SOME laws.
And for what it's worth, I've never had an abortion, participated in one, helped anyone get one, or even advised anyone on the issue.
Guttermouth
February 5, 2009 - 17:25 ET by 5kidsnadogWould you care to explain an idiotic comment like "pro-abortion"? Are you just stupid or are you very, very evil?
I'd say
February 5, 2009 - 17:31 ET by BlondeBoth.
Certainly
February 5, 2009 - 17:34 ET by guttermouthMost people who are pro choice say they believe in the woman's right to choose, but don't believe in abortion itself. I completely believe in it, not as a form of birth control by any means, but in several different cases such as the mother's health, rape cases, etc. Therefore, I believe in it. I'm not evil, and as my earlier post stated I've never had, nor will ever have anything to do with the abortion of an unborn being.
several different cases
February 5, 2009 - 17:46 ET by lotrseveral different cases such as the mother's health, rape cases, etc.
You do realize that these cases fall well outside of one standard deviation of the mean, don't you? I may be wrong, but they may even be considered statistical outliers.
Would anybody here on NB have the statistics handy?
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Okay
February 5, 2009 - 18:27 ET by guttermouthHow's this? I believe that anyone should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies. I mean anything. I think there should be laws restricting late term abortions. Some states do, some don't. Fortunately we have 50 different states with different laws, so if you don't like the laws of your state, you can find another that suits you better. Once again, I'm stating my opinion. I'm not trying to start a fight or change any minds.
Murderer.
February 5, 2009 - 18:33 ET by bretzysdudeMurderer.
I'm good with you being able to do anything you want
February 5, 2009 - 18:33 ET by 5kidsnadogwith your own body. Want to become a prostitute and you're over 18? Go ahead. At least you're making a living. Sick of living and want to stop? Go ahead. Maybe we should have a kit you can get at the prescription counter. Want to eat nothing but hydrogenated oil and twizzlers? Knock yourself out, but don't ask me to pay for your insulin or your bypass.
Rip a human being limb from limb just because of the real estate that it occupies? That's where I draw the line.
→ guttermouth
February 5, 2009 - 18:36 ET by Cool ArrowAnd furthermore, you believe my tax dollars should fund any and all manner of perversion "anyone" can imagine?
See, that's where we part ways. I realize there are ethnic groups and Democrats that wield power over them, that believe abortion is more sacrament than right.
I'd just like my name removed from the billing list. If you Democrats want to kill black babies, and the black mothers have no problem with it, I've come to the realization I can't stop your collusive genocide.
Sorry Coolie
February 5, 2009 - 18:58 ET by guttermouthI'm no democrat. I've never really felt like a club type of person, ya know?
I'm also missing your point about black babies.
As far as your tax dollars go, write your congressman or -woman and ask that they ban abortion in your state. That's all I can suggest.
No surprise guttermouth
February 5, 2009 - 19:02 ET by Cool ArrowDid I say you're a Democrat?
And you miss the point about black babies because the rate at which they are aborted, compared to that of the white population, is perfectly comfortable to you.
No surprise at all.
There you go again
February 5, 2009 - 19:12 ET by guttermouthTrying to insult me by presuming what isn't true. I'm sure you're just full of statistics about who's getting abortions where. Any solutions other than banning abortions? How about education? How about handing out condoms to everyone, everywhere, for free?
One of the really cool things about this world and humanity specifically is that we're all unique. Unfortunately that means people will have views that differ from yours. My view that differs from yours is that I don't really care what people do to themselves, and until a living baby is born, or can be born prematurely while fully developed, I don't care what someone does to their own body. Yes, I know you think it's not your body when you're destroying your baby, and that's where we differ. Is that okay?
→ Another nerve
February 5, 2009 - 19:17 ET by Cool ArrowNo it's not OK.
As long as the Government is taking my money to finance your sacrament, It's not OK.
So
February 5, 2009 - 19:38 ET by guttermouthYou're just pissed that the government spends your tax dollars on things you don't agree with? Did you agree with the Iraq war? I don't. But my tax dollars are being spent there too.
Hey! We DO have something in common - we both disagree with how the government chooses to spend our money! Sucks, eh?
if you disapprove a few
February 7, 2009 - 09:50 ET by TruthMongerif you disapprove a few thousand dead in iraq - what's your take on 40 million "iraq war's" so far at abortion clinics and counting?
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
Here we go again
February 5, 2009 - 22:29 ET by lotrAbortion and Contraception (along with a little Duct Tape) are the answers to the world's problems!
How about handing out condoms to everyone, everywhere, for free?
For free? Totally? Like, what a brilliant idea! In fact, why can't everything else be free too?!
Last time I checked, condoms were readily available. They are in supermarkets, drug stores, Walmarts, men's public rest rooms, elementary school cafeterias, etc. You do have to cough up a dollar, though, as with other vending machines.
Also, you might want to re-read your sex education books. Condoms have a dismal success rate, even when used perfectly. But that's why we have Abortion! (seriously)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but condoms are not the answer to the world's problems.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
And the award goes to
February 6, 2009 - 12:48 ET by guttermouthYou need to read an actual statistic on the success rate of condoms. 98% when used properly, 85% success normally. You call that dismal? I call that REALLY FRIGGIN' AWESOME.
http://www.4parents....
Awesome
February 6, 2009 - 13:04 ET by sherylsimsAwesome unless you are the one it failed for.
True
February 6, 2009 - 13:11 ET by guttermouthThat's what the morning after pill is for.
Q.E.D. -- see above
February 6, 2009 - 17:30 ET by lotrBoth the rates that you yourself cited are indeed dismal (and I daresay "perfect usage" is the exception, not the norm, so I tend on taking the non-perfect usage rate as the practical, as opposed to theoretical, success rate). When applied to the copulating population, that's a buttload of "unwanted pregnancies" (and not to mention "unwanted STDs," but that's a whole other can of worms).
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Guttermouth
February 5, 2009 - 18:42 ET by sherylsimsI agree that you should be able to do what you want with your own body. However an abortion isn't doing something to YOUR body, it is an entirely different person in there, and the limbs you are ripping off are not YOUR limbs, they are another human's limbs. You can't really argue that if the baby is inside you it counts. The body you are destroying is not yours. So if you want drown yourself in saline, or have your arms and legs and head torn off, or some other such thing, go ahead. Just don't do it to the innocent person inside you.
Okay then
February 5, 2009 - 19:04 ET by guttermouthDo you eat meat?
How about eggs?
What makes human life any more valuable than any other form of life?
Life
February 5, 2009 - 19:21 ET by sherylsimsHuman live is more valuable, and I didn't make it that way. I doubt we will be able to come to any kind of agreement and I really have no desire to argue this with you. I am just stating my opinion which is obviously in contrast to yours.
If you believe that people are only here on this earth as a result of a big accidental cellular occurance, with no design or planning or intelligence involved, then I can see why you would believe the way you do about abortion.
I believe that human life is valuable because God created us and loves us and sent his Son to die for us. Therefore, people are more valuable than animals. (and not nearly as tasty)
Honesty
February 5, 2009 - 19:31 ET by guttermouthSo your beliefs are based on religion. Fair enough. I call it a draw.
guttermouth
February 5, 2009 - 19:41 ET by sherylsimsNot "religion" but yes, my beliefs form who I am and Christianity is such a big part of who I am. But there is a difference between Christianity and religion. Religion is man's attempt to reach God (by behavior or organizations, or controling others) where Christianity was God reaching down to man. There is really no comparison between the two. Many things are done and said in the name of religion that God has no interest in.
But yes, you can call it a draw.
Murder of humans is already
February 5, 2009 - 23:04 ET by TruthMongerMurder of humans is already illegal in the U.S. - and a fetus certainly qualifies as human - what other species of fetus could it possibly be?
And it doesn't take religion to value human life...
I remember now that most kkk southern racists (all democrats btw) didn't consider blacks to be human either - it must be something about the left
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
sherylsims, Being an
February 5, 2009 - 19:33 ET by hydrodynDMsherylsims,
Being an agnostic (or atheist) doesn't prevent or discourage you from attributing value to human life.
Just sayin.
hydrodynDM
February 5, 2009 - 19:37 ET by sherylsimsI agree with you. I am just saying that the reason I value human life is that I believe we were put here on the earth for more than just to get as much pleasure as we can and then die and be nothing. I think humans are more important than animals because they have the capability to create and to love and to rise above "instinct". I realize a lot of people don't share my Christian views and still are able to see that all life is valuable.
sheryisims, I got ya. My
February 5, 2009 - 19:45 ET by hydrodynDMsheryisims,
I got ya. My comment to you was partly motivated by other comments I've seen in the past. I get the impression that some (maybe many) people of faith think that those without faith are obligated to view humans as little more than hedonistic animals.
As an agnostic, I can tell you that I don't view humans that way.
hydrodynDM
February 5, 2009 - 19:53 ET by sherylsimsUnfortunately "people of faith" are still just people. I try not to expect more of them than I do of anyone else. I am usually disappointed if I do. On behalf of those "people of faith" I apologize. Christians do not corner the market in good deeds or "family values" or any of the other things we are supposed to be known for.
get a clue
February 5, 2009 - 22:36 ET by lotrSo, women are pregnant with themselves? The "abortus" is just a part of her body, like an appendix? Golly, and here I thought all those ultrasound photos (those inconvenient devices) showed babies with beating hearts.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
I always find it interesting that
February 5, 2009 - 18:12 ET by 5kidsnadogthose who believe in abortion always use rape and incest as the reason to support it. Can you help explain to me how, when a young person has been victimized at the hands of her family member, a friend, or a stranger, when the worst has already happened to her, how exactly does killing the baby make it better? How is abortion a caring reaction to her situation? Is it like a revenge thing or something? Kill the baby because it's got the genes of that bad person that hurt you? Giving the product of a rape up for adoption may actually help in the healing after an assault, as a young person can be encouraged to see the goodness that can come through when evil is not allowed to win. It is all in perspective. If we teach women that these babies need to die to make it all better, then that is probably what they will do. If we helped them to see that there is another way to look at it, then maybe they will see that other perspective. And before you jump all over me, I have been assaulted (I don't choose to call myself a victim), and I can not see that an abortion would have taken a negative situation and done anything other than make it worse. Also, would you care to comment on the fact that you defend the right to kill thousands every day so that a very small number of people do not have to go through a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest? Are they just collateral damage?
As for the health of the mother argument, I'd like to see the numbers on this as well. It may have been a good argument a hundred years ago, but not so much anymore. Women who were diabetic before the availability of insulin were discouraged from carrying babies to term because of the danger to the mother and to the baby. Today, it is routine to see diabetic moms give birth to healthy children. I am one of them. I have friends who have given birth while waiting for treatment for cancer, and I have also known women who opted to have their treatment during the pregnancy. I have also seen women with severe heart disease able to manage pregnancy. There still may be a very small per cent of women who can not and should not give birth. For that number, I recommend having their tubes tied so, at the very least, it doesn't require the death of another human being to keep them alive.
There are lots of times where life hands you something that you're not exactly thrilled with. My neighbor has cancer. Do you think that, if she had a reasonable belief that the death of an unborn baby would relieve her suffering, she should be able to end it's life? Why not? If the needs of the born trump the needs of the unborn, then why shouldn't she have the right to do it if the mother of that baby thinks it's okay?
If my demented quadriplegic mother became burdensome to me, would I be justified in offing her? I mean, she wouldn't really be considered a sentient being, and I could do it by cutting her arms and legs off (where she wouldn't even feeeeel it). And besides, I can't afford her, and I wanted to go to college.....
Abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Uh
February 5, 2009 - 18:48 ET by guttermouthYou think because you have a sad story to tell (and it is sad, and I feel for you, believe it or not), that what you say is right? The abortion debate has been going on a long time, and will continue as long as man occupies the earth. I can only put it in the most simple terms - I disagree with your point of view.
See, I'm an atheist. (collective groan) My belief system is not based around religion, and I do not believe that even at 20 weeks what is growing inside a woman should be anyone else's interest. Someone else's abortion does not affect your life. Keep your kids, take care of them. Raise them well, and teach them to use protection so they won't ever be in a situation to have an abortion.
not so much
February 5, 2009 - 18:57 ET by candanceI do not believe that even at 20 weeks what is growing inside a woman should be anyone else's interest. Someone else's abortion does not affect your life.
This was the *exact same* argument proffered by slave traders before the civil war. All it takes is removing someone's status as a human to remove the guilt of torturing them.
atheism and agnosticism are
February 5, 2009 - 23:10 ET by TruthMongeratheism and agnosticism are also religions btw - any belief system is
gm's religion devalues human life substantially - he has a right to believe in it of course - but this is not a clash of religions - killing humans is ALREADY ILLEGAL IN THE U.S. AND WHAT OTHER SPECIES OF FETUS COULD THESE POSSIBLY BE OTHER THAN HUMAN?!?!?!?
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
TM
February 5, 2009 - 23:16 ET by MightyMouthwe love ya, we hear ya, but damn near half the country, for whatever reason takes the other side!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
the reason you speak of is
February 7, 2009 - 09:54 ET by TruthMongerthe reason you speak of is pc pressure and linguini spines
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
Hey GM
February 5, 2009 - 19:31 ET by 5kidsnadogI don't know why you would say I have a sad story. I don't. And my belief that abortion is murder is not based on religion. It's based on the fact that 20 week infants (and even much younger) respond to stimuli, have brains, intestines, eyes, etc. That is not a religious standpoint. It is a fact. Have you ever looked at the pictures of what remains of an 8 week old after an abortion? Arms, legs, eyes, nose, mouth, etc. What's religious about that?
What would be wrong with doing what you said, only telling them that because abortion is murder, there should be no out if you become pregnant. All the more reason to use your brain instead of your body parts when it comes to making decisions.
"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.
"On the question of the individual's freedom of choice there are easily available birth control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire.
"When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."
Name that author?????
Ted Kennedy - 1971
Yeah, I get it
February 5, 2009 - 19:56 ET by guttermouthI get that you have 5 kids and you love the little things and they're the sunshine in your life and you can't imagine losing even one of them and oh, why doesn't everyone think the way you do and if we all did we'd just be one big happy family living on this earth...
Until the law defines abortion as murder, it ain't murder. Of course, what's the constitution anyway, right?
Nice quote by the way. I don't give a damn about Ted Kennedy's views. I didn't vote for him, nor any other Kennedy for that matter. There's no place for royal families controlling this country. And it goes for the Clinton family, the Bush family, the Kennedys...who am I missing?
Guttermouth
February 5, 2009 - 20:02 ET by sherylsimsYears ago, when I was a teacher, I was on playground duty and a bunch of 1st and 2nd graders came running to me to "come and see" what they found. When I got to the back fence of the field where they were playing there was a tiny little baby. Fully formed, small enough to close your hand around. It had arms, legs, eyes, a spine... everything. I don't know how many weeks it was, but we kindof guessed that some poor girl gave birth to it and threw it over the fence. Don't know any other way it could have gotten there. Try explaining THAT to a bunch of 1st and 2nd graders. All that to say, you can believe whatever you want. It doesn't necessarily make you right. And if you don't believe in right and wrong anyway, then who cares?
sheryl.... Was the baby
February 5, 2009 - 20:06 ET by bigtimersheryl....
Was the baby alive...did the baby live?
I hope.
Bigtimer
February 5, 2009 - 20:11 ET by sherylsimsNo. I think it had been there all night. This was early in the morning that they found it, and we went over and looked on the other side of the wall where we thought it came from and found evidence that someone had been there. But it was too small to survive, being hurled over a wall like that and all.
Oh my gosh...how terribly
February 5, 2009 - 20:14 ET by bigtimerOh my gosh...how terribly sad.
I'm sure you handled it well, even though you had to handle your own emotions at the same time.
I'm just speechless at times...also get choked up inside.
Thanks for the reply.
That story has NOTHING do do with this argument
February 5, 2009 - 20:12 ET by guttermouthI hardly believe a licensed doctor would perform an abortion and dispose of it in that way. This is obviously a case of a prematurely born/miscarriage by someone with some major problems. It's also highly illegal and that mother should have been charged. In California, you have the legal right to drop off any newborn at a hospital or firestation with NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I believe this to be an excellent policy.
I resent you saying I don't the difference between right and wrong. I could hurl insults at you too, but I'll save that for another day. Right and wrong is not decided because your views of abortion differ from mine. I'd expect a school teach to know better.
Well, first of all, I
February 5, 2009 - 20:18 ET by sherylsimsWell, first of all, I don't think I said you don't know the difference between right and wrong. I think I said you don't believe in right and wrong and I wasn't trying to insult you when I said it. If you just make up your own rules as you go along then you can just draw the line wherever you want.
The point of that story is that the BABY that was left on the field of our playground was a BABY. A PERSON and that person may have been a result or a miscarriage or who knows what, but when you look at a little fully formed PERSON and realize that it isn't a part of the mother, it is a fully seperate individual, it makes your argument that the woman can do whatever she wants with her body just another example of moving the line so what is truly wrong can appear right for your own rationalization purposes.
Well then
February 5, 2009 - 20:24 ET by guttermouthWhat makes you think I don't know the difference between right and wrong? Because I don't agree with your views? I have the US constitution on my side of the argument, as well as a majority of Americans. So?
And if you don't
February 5, 2009 - 20:27 ET by sherylsimsAnd if you don't believe in right and wrong anyway, then who cares?
That is what I said. And actually when I wrote it I wasn't meaning "YOU" you, but if you insist on taking it that way I won't fight with you about it. What I was trying to say was if "A person" doesn't believe in right and wrong (and constantly moving the line qualifies.) I am not trying to insult you, but you seem to want me to.
Yawn
February 5, 2009 - 21:28 ET by guttermouthOkay, this is getting old now. How's this?
You do not believe in abortion. I do. We're not going to agree.
Chances are we both know the differences between right and wrong, and our conflicting views on abortion have nothing to do with it. Done.
then all i have to do is
February 5, 2009 - 23:23 ET by TruthMongerthen all i have to do is believe that some people are not human - like liberals for example - and if I just "believe in it then i can "abort" 3000 liberals a day and I'm exempt from murder laws - you know - because "I just don't agree" with many people in this country that liberals are human...
sounds good:)!
This is the only response I will
February 5, 2009 - 22:00 ET by choselife3xDignify your sorry @ss with on this subject.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that makes abortion legal.
Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision that had nothing to do with the Constitution. You are a fool. A morally bankrupt, degenerate, bottom-feeding FOOL.
You are an angry person.
-Queen Mum (Who knew she was funny? I didn't)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
knockedup3x
February 6, 2009 - 12:58 ET by guttermouthUntil there's a law in place, until you and your pathetic troop of right to choose non-believers get a constitutional amendment overturning roe v wade, you are out of luck. Any way you look at it, any argument you can come up with does not matter. Until US LAW changes to make aborting an unwanted pregnancy murder, it ain't murder.
You're the fool here. An insane, uneducated, probably somewhat psychotic fool. Happy friday, idiot.
awwwww
February 6, 2009 - 13:08 ET by sherylsimsdon't be hatin'
aw dang, I wish I could stay here all day with you lovely people, but I have to go organize my teabags.
"I'd expect a school
February 5, 2009 - 20:20 ET by sherylsims"I'd expect a school teach to know better."
Well, it wasn't a public school, so maybe I didn't get the memo on that.
gm...Udall's and the
February 5, 2009 - 20:08 ET by bigtimergm...
Udalls' and the Salazars'...throw in the Levins' too.
Plus
February 5, 2009 - 21:16 ET by guttermouthI'd like to throw in a Villaraigosa too, just to make sure he doesn't have a little army following in his footsteps.
Little one... I'd love to
February 5, 2009 - 21:29 ET by bigtimerLittle one...
I'd love to include thar army myself.
The Levin's
February 6, 2009 - 20:38 ET by UpNorthStabenows', when hubby isn't out hunting hookers, and the Granholms', Kilpatricks' and Conyers' too.
"define abortion as
February 5, 2009 - 23:16 ET by TruthMonger"define abortion as murder" ???
abortion is a MURDER PROCEDURE - like bashing someone to death with a baseball bat is a murder procedure - or is bashing someone to death with a baseball bat "DEFINED AS MURDER" somewhere in the law books that i don't know about...????
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
I do not believe that even
February 6, 2009 - 10:36 ET by lotrI do not believe that even at 20 weeks what is growing inside a woman should be anyone else's interest
OK, so then logically extrapolating this, then you also do not believe that "what is growing" inside a woman's private property (e.g., under her roof, so to speak) should be anyone else's interest, either. Your rationalization is a perfect justification for the legalization of postpartum infanticide as well.
See, I'm an atheist.
See, I usually avoid bringing God into the abortion argument, unless someone from the pro-abortion side foolishly decides to do so. However, reference to the Creator does eventually become necessary in the abortion debate in that "all men (persons) are created equal, that they are endowed... with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and..." you know the rest.
Someone else's abortion does not affect your life.
Neither, apparently, does their tax evasion, nor their driving 90 in a 55 zone, nor does somebody else's rape, nor someone else's dog-fighting gambling ring, nor somebody else owning a slave. Just don't do these things yourself if you are personally against them. What business is it of mine to lay judgement on others? The above rationalization is a justification for any criminal activity.
Such self-deluded platitudes are Naiveté at best, and sinister propaganda at worst.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Yes, that's just brilliant, mouth.
February 5, 2009 - 18:23 ET by Mike BrattonYou believe there are only certain circumstances in which it's all right to kill a developing child?
Tremendous. You couch barbarism and butchery in rules and stipulations.
There is no justifiable circumstance, whatsoever, that gives anyone permission to kill a yet-to-be-born child.
And your refusal to "have anything to do with" an abortion is a bit off-kilter, don't you think? If you "completely believe in it," you should get elbow-deep in it. So either participate in one, or spare us the blather about how you "completely believe" in abortion.
If you're that gung ho about it, break out the curettes and get yourself some bona fides. Show, don't tell, how much you believe in killing children.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
AH, YES
February 5, 2009 - 18:53 ET by guttermouthA man who wants to tell women what to do with their bodies. You're a peach. A gem. Any chance you're single too?
I have no problem
February 5, 2009 - 20:16 ET by FrankBwith what a woman does with her body, but the developing fetus has a different DNA, making it a seperate body. Do you disagree?
Separate body, yes
February 5, 2009 - 21:21 ET by guttermouthDNA, yes. Little floating blob ≠ not my idea of human being with rights. Still belongs to the mother, all the mother's decision. Are you another one who considers human life the only important form of life?
(sorry if I offended anyone with the little blob comment)
gm... What about the
February 5, 2009 - 21:33 ET by bigtimergm...
What about the father's right?
A little illumination for you, mouth.
February 5, 2009 - 22:15 ET by Mike BrattonThe next time you break out that "her body, her choice" nonsense, I'd encourage you to consider that what you callously refer to as a "blob" has a different gender from Mom roughly fifty percent of the time, and a different genetic structure one hundred percent of the time.
And since, from what I've read, you've gotten all Pete Singer on us and equated humans to lower animals, that's only one of the many things you should consider.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Mike... Good luck either
February 5, 2009 - 22:19 ET by bigtimerMike...
Good luck either of us getting a reply.
I posted my question to little one right above quite awhile ago now.
Tsk...Tsk....
I don't give a crap
February 6, 2009 - 13:08 ET by guttermouthThat thing growing inside the mother does not affect the father physically. What's this infatuation with fathers rights? Most simply put, I don't think it's up to him. We disagree here, so save the speech.
Fortunately the law is on the side of the mother here too.
Not in the physical sense.
February 6, 2009 - 14:53 ET by KarmaHas anyone ever really loved you? You exude an overwhelming sense of having been extremely hurt or neglected. This is not intended as a dig. I'm truely curious as to what motivates your outlook on life.
No representation, without taxation!
HahahahahaHAHA
February 6, 2009 - 15:51 ET by guttermouthLame. Yes I've been loved. I had a pretty great upbringing, a pretty good life in fact. I'm very happily married, have a great job, great friends...
But it was a nice try psychoanalyzing me.
Not to nit pick.
February 6, 2009 - 17:46 ET by KarmaBut you've got one of those fake laughs that make people cringe. Not a big deal though.
If what you say about your life is true, why do you display the opposite? You seem to be dancing with death and misery and are quite proud of it. Not happy or anything close. Just proud.
An honest answer this time. Do you have a dog?
No representation, without taxation!
Huh
February 6, 2009 - 19:11 ET by guttermouthBecause of my beliefs you think I'm dancing with death and misery? That doesn't make any sense at all.
No dogs, 2 cats. They're both a-holes. We rescued them from a shelter. They're still a-holes.
Uh Huh.
February 6, 2009 - 22:30 ET by KarmaYes it does. Just not to you. At least not now.
Why notate that you "rescued" them? Does it make you "proud" that you saved the miserable "a-holes"? I know I added the "miserable", but most a-holes are.
No representation, without taxation!
follow the $$$
February 6, 2009 - 18:37 ET by BO STINKSThen, gm, it stands to reason that you must have some monetary stake in promoting the murder of pre-born future feminists. Many here understand that abortion is an industry that makes billions every year (it is NOT a public service) - do you?
"If your cause is just, if your principles are pure & if your conduct is prudent you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts." John Witherspoon
Abortion is not a public service?
February 6, 2009 - 19:15 ET by guttermouthHuh? What? Huh? How can I put this? Planned Parenthood provides abortion services, as well as many other services such as birth control, counseling, support...In these ways, YES, I see it as a public service. How is it not?
Public Services
February 7, 2009 - 07:53 ET by Sergeant ROCKYeah, it's just like riding the bus. Except for the sanctioned murder part.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
sarge, what kind of "public
February 7, 2009 - 10:00 ET by TruthMongersarge, what kind of "public service" murders 3700 citizens every day?
the "evil tobacco industry" isn't even that deadly
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
Funny that..
February 7, 2009 - 10:06 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. Islamo-fascist murderers have more rights than the unborn? I'm just curious how much further we have to go before God smites us for good?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Ah. Now we get to the heart of the matter.
February 6, 2009 - 15:05 ET by Mike BrattonThank you for the illumination, mouth.
You consider a developing human child to be a "thing." You refuse to consider measured discussion that refutes your subjective reasoning. And why? Because you "don't give a crap." That way, it just doesn't matter how airtight and overwhelming the pro-life evidence is--in your mindset, the fact that you just don't care acts as some sort of dialectical trump card.
It isn't.
Objectively speaking, morality is never on the side of someone who seeks, performs, facilitates, or advocates an abortion.
Oh, and before I forget to ask--have you performed any abortions yet? Observed any? Helped to take out the "trash"? I expect that someone as totally given over to the procedure as you are would invest time and effort into it, rather than merely giving lip service.
Please, let us know how you're putting your money where your... well, where your mouth is.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Just following the law here
February 6, 2009 - 15:25 ET by guttermouthLet's see, all of the things I believe in but don't participate in:
I drive on the road, but I don't spend my days fixing potholes.
I eat steak, but I don't slaughter cows.
I go to football games, but I've never played professionally.
I've had a colonoscopy done, but I didn't ask to see the video.
AND I believe in abortions but don't perform them myself.
I also don't believe in your religion for that matter, and because it drives all of your arguments, I can easily fall back on (here's that pesky constitution coming up again) the separation of church and state. Fortunately your christian dogma doesn't make our laws.
Until the federal government gives rights to the thing growing inside the mother, whatever you say is simply babble for your listeners.
And my "I don't give a crap" statement was directed at fathers rights. I don't give a crap about the father's rights, or lack thereof per the LAW (damn, there's that pesky law thing coming up again).
Little one... You're a
February 6, 2009 - 15:58 ET by bigtimerLittle one...
You're a heartless little troller...nothing new though, you haven't changed a lick.
Carry on...with your BS...because that is all this is folks, pure BS.
You disappoint me
February 6, 2009 - 16:11 ET by guttermouthThat's the best response you can come up with? Just that what I say is BS because you disagree? Where'd you learn your debating skill? The school of "I know you are but what am I" or was it just Namecalling U?
My. Hoisted by your own petard. Must be painful.
February 6, 2009 - 16:55 ET by Mike BrattonSorry to deflate your protestations, but you said that you "completely believe" in abortion. Your words.
You're sold out to it. Best thing since the wheel. You want to hand out Planned Parenthood abortion gift certificates as presents. You think the Shamwow guy should be hawking abortions on cable TV.
You. Competely. Believe.
When people "completely believe" in something, they get behind it with deeds, not merely words--and especially not with words they can't even sign with their real names.
If you "completely believed" in improving the infrastructure, you'd be out picking up roadside trash. If you "completely believed" that beef is what's for dinner, you'd at least know where your dinner came from. If you "completely believed" in football, you'd put on some pads and show up for practice. If you "completely believed" in lower GI health, you'd get all Katie Couric and let everybody see the video highlights.
So, mouth, from your own words, you don't "completely believe" in any of the stuff you don't participate in. If it's true, as you insisted previously, that you "completely believe" in abortion, then you either need to attack the "things" in women's wombs, or else admit you're not the sold-out individual you advertise yourself to be.
While I'm not going to trot out a resume, I can assure you of something, mouth: There are things in this life in which I "completely believe," and the actions of my life reflect those beliefs. Up and down the line.
Last I checked, I haven't quoted a lot of Scripture to defend what I've been discussing with you--so that get-out-of-discussion card you think you have... well, you don't really have it.
I also haven't talked much about legality, since that's never exactly set in granite. Remember when abortions used to be illegal? Would your appeal to the law have worked back then?
Of course not. The discussion--at least the part that I've provided--is with regard to objective morality, not transient legality.
And with regard to the personal potshots, all you're doing is using your nom de plume to write checks that you can't cash. Please stick to discussing issues. Or perhaps I should say please start discussing issues.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Here's a thought for the preacher
February 6, 2009 - 17:18 ET by guttermouthWhen you post your first and last name and a link to your other site, it's not to difficult to find out information about you. You don't have to preach scripture for anyone with a basic knowledge of religion to know you've based 100% of your arguments on that.
Your "believe in" arguments are not only completely invalid, but somewhat moronic. Did you call in to Rush's show to get some help with that? I was listening in on the day's show when he actually used the same argument. Of course he's just a hypocrite too, so whatevs.
Here's something else I believe in, which has been proven, unlike just about everything in your bible - evolution. Scientists actually studying something instead of taking for granted a fairy tale written hundreds and hundreds of years ago. You know we have a name for people who claim they've spoken to god - LOONEYS!
Jeez, I'm reading your post again and still can't believe how dumb some of your arguments are.
"I believe in, which has been proven...evolution." gm
February 6, 2009 - 17:42 ET by vrwc13...bwahahahahahaha...
You are either ignorant or just looking for a fight...
The "theory" of evolution is far from being proven. Just because you or others so so don't make it so. btw, where you there?
On the other hand, not one iota of the Bible has ever, not ever, been proven false! Not one. God does not make mistakes, otherwise He is not God!
...sorry for calling you ignorant or looking for a fight...because I agree with God, you are a fool.
v
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
"I believe in, which has been proven...evolution." gm
February 6, 2009 - 17:42 ET by vrwc13...bwahahahahahaha...
You are either ignorant or just looking for a fight...
The "theory" of evolution is far from being proven. Just because you or others so so don't make it so. btw, where you there?
On the other hand, not one iota of the Bible has ever, not ever, been proven false! Not one. God does not make mistakes, otherwise He is not God!
...sorry for calling you ignorant or looking for a fight...because I agree with God, you are a fool.
v
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
Dumb
February 6, 2009 - 18:01 ET by guttermouthIf you really think that the bible holds more truths than the theory of evolution because no one has disproved it, then I just feel sorry for you. That's not an actual argument. One can argue that the sun is really just a planet of water - no one's been there to prove it otherwise. Do you believe in the easter bunny too? Or Santa Claus? I feel dumber just for reading your post.
By the way, here's one for you. People don't rise from the dead. That's been proven. That's fact. Sorry it destroys your entire belief system, but facts are facts. People do not rise from the dead.
I respect people's faith, but not when they use it to back up such asinine arguments as this. How did you ever make it past 3rd grade?
poor guttermouth...if he wasn't such a fool...
February 6, 2009 - 18:13 ET by vrwc13First of all, I will ignore all of your personal jabs because I know you follow this:
Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Now, for the more important issues:
People don't rise from the dead. That's been proven.
History, recorded both in the Bible and in other writtings confirm that people have in fact, risen from the dead.
v
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
If
February 6, 2009 - 18:30 ET by guttermouthIf the bible had any real truth to it, it would be taught in history class. Face it, you're out of arguments.
Faith is nothing more than faith. Believe all you want, but you'll never be able to prove any of it. And by claiming it hasn't been disproved as your way of validating it, you're only making yourself look like a jackass.
ahh the good old days...
February 6, 2009 - 18:44 ET by sherylsimsUsed to be the Bible WAS taught in History class. That was before the schools were taken over by people with an anti-God agenda.
Insane
February 6, 2009 - 19:22 ET by guttermouthSeparation of church and state. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I can't say it any louder. If there was truth to it, it would be taught in PUBLIC schools. There is no proven truth to it, which is why it is not taught in public schools. It's not some secret anti god agenda. It's simply people who follow the US Constitution who don't want YOUR beliefs thrust on others. Who are you to teach christianity as truth to a jew, or a muslim, or an atheist for that matter?
guttermouth
February 7, 2009 - 00:08 ET by RESTLESS 1Could you please come in here with rhetoric we haven't heard before? Pretty please?
It is comical to me the way you non-believers are so threatened by those who do believe.
Nobody is commanding you to believe in anything (well, except for islamists). Think about it. We are so awash in bullshit every day, every one of us, but you choose to lash out at Christians. It makes no sense. There are so many out there aiming for your demise. Christians are the least of your worries.
You demand everyone respects you beliefs, or the right to the lack thereof, but you have no intention of ever respecting anyone else's.
BTW, you are right, there is no scientific proof of a deity. If there were, then Faith would be moot, a sad prospect in my eyes.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
you're only making yourself look like a jackass.
February 6, 2009 - 18:57 ET by vrwc13you're only making yourself look like a jackass.
Better a jackass for God than a fool for the devil!
If the bible had any real truth to it, it would be taught in history class.
Has been:
Is:
v
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
you're only making yourself look like a jackass.
February 6, 2009 - 18:58 ET by vrwc13you're only making yourself look like a jackass.
Better a jackass for God than a fool for the devil!
If the bible had any real truth to it, it would be taught in history class.
Has been:
Is:
v
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
Um
February 6, 2009 - 19:26 ET by guttermouthDo you even read your posts before you hit the enter button? Harvard and most Ivy League Schools you speak of are privately funded schools. They're allowed to teach bible study.
Which public schools was the bible taught in? Once again, a citation please.
Private and home schools - again, private schools - okay, public schools financed by the state - not okay.
Separation of church and state.
Face it, as much as you'd like to believe, your god is not everyones god. Sorry.
Don't get me started on home-schooled kids.
Which public schools was the bible taught in? Once again, a cite
February 6, 2009 - 19:46 ET by vrwc13...a cite...how about a site?
To date, our Bible curriculum has been voted into 475 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 353,600 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.
...oh dear, haven't these poeple and these schools heard of Separation of church and state?
...read and weep oh ye of little faith, or should I say man of faith in being future worm food?
v
I had a "Bible as Literature" Class in High School
February 6, 2009 - 19:49 ET by MightyMouth...public High School. Carried a bible to school every day.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Which public schools was the bible taught in?
February 6, 2009 - 20:06 ET by vrwc13duplicate
Which public schools was the bible taught in?
February 6, 2009 - 20:04 ET by vrwc13here you go...
The Bible was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, our educational system, and our entire history until the last 20 to 30 years.
"The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed." Patrick Henry
"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom." Horace Greely
"I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens." Thomas Jefferson
While President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was elected the first president of the Washington, D.C. public school board, which used the Bible as a reading text in the classroom. There was a secular study done by the American Political Science Review on thepolitical documents of the Founding era, which was 1760-1805. This study found that 94% of the documents that went into the Founding ERA were based on the Bible, and of that 34% of the contents were direct quotations from the Bible. 88% of students nationwide are educated in the public school system.
v
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
So,
February 7, 2009 - 10:35 ET by UpNorth"Harvard and most Ivy League Schools you speak of are privately funded schools". They don't take a penny of Federeal money? If they do, then they no longer remain privately funded schools.
As to the "separation of church and state", folks like you always, always, forget the other part of the First Amendment, namely, " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" don't you? BTW, it doesn't mention "separation of church and state" anywhere in the First Amendment. Pick and choose, you'll usually lose. The debate, that is.
Rising from the dead
February 6, 2009 - 18:15 ET by sherylsimsPeople don't. But God did. That is why it is called a miracle.
People don't. But God did.
February 6, 2009 - 18:27 ET by vrwc13People don't. But God did.
...sorry wrong and then right!
50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. Matthew 27
38Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said.
"But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." 40Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" 41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me." 43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" 44The dead man came out,… John 11
v
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
vrwc13
February 6, 2009 - 18:36 ET by sherylsimsYou're right. Sorry, what I meant was that people don't raise THEMSELVES from the dead. But you are absolutely right with the verses you posted and I said it wrong.
Hahahahahahaha
February 6, 2009 - 18:37 ET by guttermouthTwas the night before christmas and all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in hopes that Saint Nicholas soon would be there.
The children were nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads.
And momma in her kerchief, and I in my cap, had just settled down for a long winter's nap.
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter, I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.
Should I go on? Yeah, I have cute little stories to quote too, but it doesn't make it true now does it?
but it doesn't make it true now does it?
February 6, 2009 - 19:03 ET by vrwc13but it doesn't make it true now does it?
Truth? How about:
So which one of the above sounds more like truth to you?
v
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
Let's see here
February 6, 2009 - 19:06 ET by guttermouthScientific study versus fairy tale. Hmm...
Hmmmmmm....
(scratching my head)
Nope, I'm still going with Science for $400 Bob.
Scientific study versus fairy tale. Hmm...
February 6, 2009 - 19:22 ET by vrwc13Scientific study used to say the earth was flat...Hmm.
guttermouth...your hope is living a "good" life before becoming worm food...Hmm
as for me...my hope is in an eternal life with my King who rose from the dead...
Hmmm...I hope you are wrong for both our sakes...
...gotta run, got six un-aborted kids at home to feed and read to them about how Jesus loves them!
v
Good Riddance
February 6, 2009 - 19:31 ET by guttermouthYou're using the flat earth theory as backup? Here's a link for you, since you're apparently a fan:
http://www.theflatea...
Do you also believe the earth is only 4000 years old? Fundamentalism is so screwed up. Later gator.
I think you ought to pack up your soapbox, ma'am.
February 6, 2009 - 19:42 ET by Mike BrattonFirst off, you've yet to engage in substantive dialogue regarding any point brought up in this thread. People present issues and ideas, and you studiously ignore them.
Secondly, you don't acquit yourself very well even in defending the barbarism of abortion--something in which you say you "completely believe." In point of fact, you don't even try. You think "crap" and "BS" are refutations; in a way, I guess they are. They're refutations of your worldview.
And thirdly, with this...
"When you post your first and last name and a link to your other site, it's not to difficult to find out information about you."
...you crossed over into stalker territory. On your best day you can't intimidate me, but trying to do so again demonstrates that you're not here for discussion, but for sheer antagonism.
We're done, and I strongly suggest that other NB participants leave you to yourself.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Intimidation is not my interest
February 6, 2009 - 19:56 ET by guttermouthBut obviously it's yours. Stalker? You're the one who posted your info. And why? So everyone could know just how great you are. Just keep believing your fairy tales. They won't make you happy, and they certainly won't lead you to an afterlife. Enjoy the dirt and the worms. That's all you get.
Think? You dont think...?
February 6, 2009 - 15:16 ET by bassndudeThink? You dont think...? Well, if thats the case, that the father has no rights to the child, why would you be the first in line calling for child support? Mothers rights? You cant have one with out the other, you know. If the father has no rights to the fate of the child, then the mother has no rights to support of the father.
Where do you get your moronic ideas? What is it? Your mind is like a ceptic tank of ideas, swimming around in there with no direction or correlation to reality.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
My turn
February 6, 2009 - 15:56 ET by guttermouthWhere do you get off being such a hypocrite? What makes human life so much more valuable than other forms of life? Because that's how YOU read your bible? That's a load of BS. Don't pretend to care so much about the life of an unborn baby while stuffing your face with your morning steak and eggs. SUCH a hypocrite! Puke!
Gutter, just where did I
February 6, 2009 - 17:06 ET by bassndudeGutter, just where did I mention bible or reading in my post? It is that type of response from you that really speaks loads about your reading comprehenson skills, or lack there of. You completely skipped the contents of my post and started another subject altogether.
And you wonder why people here think your a moron.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
It's in your profile
February 6, 2009 - 17:23 ET by guttermouth"Pro God(in and out of school)"
It doesn't take much to realize that's where most of your arguments are based. Don't act all high and mighty and free thinking when you hide that bible behind your back.
Talk about hypocrisy!
February 7, 2009 - 00:41 ET by CobraMan"Don't pretend to care so much about the life of an unborn baby while stuffing your face with your morning steak and eggs."
Talk about hypocrisy! Do you even understand what life is and how animals live? Get this straight: All Animals Eat Other Life Forms. Humans are no different. By consuming another life form, we perform the same functions that ALL animals perform. Consuming animal flesh is not an exception. That is a part of animal behavior! How can you claim that this is a hypocritical act!
Now, compare that NATURAL animal behavior to the distinctly human behavior of abortion, the INTENTIONAL killing of a human infant. Humans are the ONLY animals that do this, no other animal life form would WILLINGLY kill their progeny. Humans are performing an unnatural act by killing their progeny!
By advocating abortions, it is YOU who are acting against natural behavior. It is YOU who are disregarding animal life. It is YOU who is acting in an unnatural manor. It is YOU who are the hypocrite here. It is YOU who is the true PUKE, the Bile of Humanity!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Cobra,
February 7, 2009 - 00:43 ET by RESTLESS 1I hate to disagree with you here, as I see you point, but there are many in the animal kingdom that devour their own. Some for territorial purposes, some out of hunger, but they do kill their progeny.
It seems to me that we should be above the animals and not do the same.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
No like humans
February 7, 2009 - 00:47 ET by CobraManYes, some do eat their young, but they do NOT purposely abort them.. We are the ONLY species that does this.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
To be fair
February 7, 2009 - 00:53 ET by RESTLESS 1We are the only species with the technological prowess and enhanced cranial capacity to do so.
I am not trying to be argumentative. I agree with you that it is wrong.
And your point about hypocrisy is right on. I find it sad that the same people that cry over my omelet will defend a woman having an abortion for no other pupose than to retain her "right" to keep whoring around.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
A lack of critical thinking skills
February 7, 2009 - 01:04 ET by CobraManFor me, anyone who bemoans the consumption of animal flesh while confessing a concern for animal life displays a serious lack of critical thinking skills.
I am reminded of the movie Faces of Death where a man is attacked and killed by a bear after approaching that bear, repeating the phrase: "Here, Bear. Nice Bear."
I particularly enjoy the irony of the bear running off with the man's arm. We all know what's going to happen to that arm, don't we? Nice Bear, indeed!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Right on there Cobra
February 7, 2009 - 01:13 ET by RESTLESS 1One's dog may have some warm feelings for them. The cat definitely doesn't give a damn.
Any other species of animal is completely reticent to our being.
Now, I am all for humane treatment of animals, but enjoy a good steak or rack of ribs. And if there is one cow left on earth, and I am feeling peckish... well let's just say the pit shall be lit.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Evolutionarily speaking
February 7, 2009 - 01:35 ET by CobraManContrary to the beliefs of the vegans, we are actually doing more to adhere to the concept of natural selection by growing our food animals than the vegans realize. In doing so, we are actually more compassionate to animals we eat than the vegans care to admit.
For example:
Question: What is arguably the most successful species of bird on plant earth today?
Answer: The domestic Chicken.
Domestic Chickens number in the BILLIONS at any given time. No other species of bird is as successful as that poor little chicken. We feed, shelter, and care for those chickens. In return they feed us. This is called symbiosis, and it is a natural, and successful, evolutionary tactic.
As long as we keep raising and eating those chickens, their genetic line is guaranteed to survive. How many other species of birds have a guaranteed chance to continue their genetic line like the chicken? I would say; very damn few! Yet, according to the vegans, that poor little chicken would be better off without us. Would it really be better off without us? Maybe they should ask the chicken.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
How smart are we, really?
February 7, 2009 - 01:20 ET by CobraMan"We are the only species with the technological prowess and enhanced cranial capacity to do so."
We're not as smart as we believe. How much "enhanced cranial capacity" do we display when, by performing abortions, we apply less intelligence than a simple fruit fly, a nearly brainless species that still manages to do their best to insure that their progeny will survive and flourish by ceaselessly endeavoring to place their progeny in an environment that is conducive to survival?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Cobra,
February 7, 2009 - 01:34 ET by RESTLESS 1"Smart" and "intelligence" are not that are relevant to each other as far as I am concerned. The fact that we have the intelligence to do certain things does not make the choice to do so a smart one.
Geez, please tell me we are not still at odds on this.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Different kinds of intelligence
February 7, 2009 - 01:45 ET by CobraManI think there are different kinds of intelligence.
For example, there is inherent (genetic) intelligence and experienced (learned) intelligence. We are "smart" when we successfully combine to two different intelligences.
By overriding our inherent intelligence of protecting our children by employing our experienced intelligence to abort them, we are not successfully combining the two separate intelligences (they are diametrically opposed) and we are, therefor, not acting "smart." We are, in fact, acting dumber than a fruit fly.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Allow me to clarify
February 7, 2009 - 00:55 ET by CobraManAllow me to clarify my position.
The behavior you describe still allows for the possibility that any given progeny will survive and breed. In any given case, the chance that a particular progeny will survive is the same for any other progeny. There is still a chance for that progeny to survive.
In abortions, that possibility does not exist. The child has no change to survive, none at all. No other species treat their progeny this way, we are the only ones who will remove any chance for a given progeny to survive. This is why abortion is a uniquely human behavior.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
from the mouth of guttermouth
February 6, 2009 - 17:26 ET by lotr"A man who wants to tell women what to do with their bodies."
More leftwing propaganda. It's not her body that is aborted -- it's her (and a man's) offspring that is aborted.
Furthemore, what difference does it make that he is a man (other than, of course, the sensationalistic emotional appeal)? It's almost as if men are being faulted for the fact of nature that females of the species are the ones who gestate. Like men are the ones who invented pregnacy to "oppress" women.
FYI, there is no statistical difference between women's and men's positions on the issue of abortion. None. That means there are a lot of men out there who are pro-abortion, and a lot of women out there who are anti-abortion. But then, if it doesn't impact the men's bodies, why do men care at all about the issue either way? Why should any man care? And why should any man have any say, one way or the other?
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Precisely.
February 6, 2009 - 17:52 ET by guttermouthExcept if your argument is so valid, why do all the laws point the other direction?
And where do your statistics come from. Please cite.
why do all the laws point the other direction?
February 6, 2009 - 18:04 ET by vrwc13Laws? What laws. Man's or God's?
Many of "man's" laws are against abortion around the world.
All of God's laws are against abortion.
...so just what is your point?
btw: don't miss this.
v
Exactly
February 6, 2009 - 18:41 ET by guttermouthWhich is why your god doesn't make OUR laws. Because it's a fictional belief (hey, whatever gets you through the day), and holds no absolute truths. It's also against what this country was founded on, and thank your god our forefathers had the sanity to include that in our constitution.
And how
February 6, 2009 - 19:08 ET by UpNorthabout your cite on the last sentence of this post?
If our forefathers could
February 6, 2009 - 19:18 ET by sherylsimsIf our forefathers could see how far this country has come from what they intended when they wrote the constitution they would probably have just said, "Whatever" and gone out and got a beer and not even bothered. Don't EVEN try to say that THIS is what was intended by the forefathers. They believed in God and they embraced His laws. Try reading some of what they wrote.
Oh Sheryl
February 6, 2009 - 19:50 ET by guttermouthQuite the historian. You think YOU'RE an example of what our forefathers wanted? Someone who feels their beliefs are the only truths, the only beliefs that matter? That pretty much sums up why this country was started in the first place. You're completely backwards on this. May your god have mercy on your soul.
gm, in spite of your belief that it is open to debate...
February 6, 2009 - 20:04 ET by clinging to my guns and my religionright will always be right, wrong will never, ever be anything but wrong, and "laws" created by governments cannot supercede that. i know i run great risk of having you accuse me of being "insane" or worse, but i could hold my thoughts no longer. you are to be pitied.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke
This is my last reply
February 6, 2009 - 21:13 ET by sherylsimsThis is my last reply for you because, frankly, I have better things to do.
What is your definition of believing something? Did I ever say that MY beliefs are the only ones that matter? I do believe I am right and you are wrong, and to ME your beliefs do not matter. But you feel the exact same way about me and my beliefs. So just find someone else to pick a fight with. I am done.
congrats on suffering this
February 7, 2009 - 10:27 ET by TruthMongercongrats on suffering this fool for as long as you have:)
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
Also
February 6, 2009 - 18:42 ET by guttermouthI'm still waiting for your cite.
See below.
February 7, 2009 - 15:35 ET by lotrSee below.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
citation
February 6, 2009 - 20:25 ET by lotrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion
This is just a generic one. Here men are shown to be more pro-abortion then women, but as I've already said, it is a statistical dead heat. But pretty much all of them will show the same thing.
And precisely what? And what laws and direction are you referring to?
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
It's my baby too
February 6, 2009 - 21:34 ET by CobraMan"But then, if it doesn't impact the men's bodies, why do men care at all about the issue either way?"
I don't know if you're aware of this, but it takes both a man and a woman to produce a baby, they don't spontaneous appear in a woman's womb. That meant that BOTH parents have a stake in that child and it's future, not just the mother.
BTW, it's not your baby, it's a baby. Children, even unborn ones, are not property to be discarded at will.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan
February 6, 2009 - 22:32 ET by lotrBoth good points. I'll also add that being male ought not disqualify a person from acting on and voting his conscience, especially regarding matters of life or death, although guttermouth seems to suggest otherwise.
What I was pointing out is that if it is immoral (or unethical, hypocritical, or however an atheist would phrase it) for a man to be anti-abortion (as guttermouth implicated above) because abortions are not performed on men (although men perform abortions), then the same goes for one who is pro-abortion. Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Gore, Lieberman, Giuliani, et al. all need to STFU, following guttermouth's logic. We now have "mens' reverse-suffrage," folks.
Of course, let's be frank: It ain't about logic to begin with, but rather emotional catch-phrases meant to sway the feebleminded.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
I also agree with you...
February 7, 2009 - 00:07 ET by CobraMan... and would like to add that the argument that men are forcing more women into abortion than are preventing women from having an abortion is a fallacy. One which is designed to disguise the fact that abortion is a woman's "right," and ONLY a woman's "right."
A farther can not legally force a woman to have an abortion, can not impose her to have an abortion against her will. Any man who did this would be charged with several crimes, including spousal abuse and intentional manslaughter.
Also, a father can not also legally prevent a woman from having an abortion, can not force her to keep that child against her will. Any man who tried this would, one again, be charged with several crimes, including spousal abuse and medical privacy infringement.
On the other hand, a woman can legally keep or abort that child, with or without the consent of the father. Men really have no choice in the matter.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
but stinkymouth....your statement
February 6, 2009 - 20:42 ET by porpoiseboyof course makes an assumption that men who tell women what to do with their bodies are men who are against abortion. i would submit to you ma'am many more men have forced and coorced women to HAVE abortions than have tried to keep them from it. many, many, many women who would otherwise keep their babies are forced and otherwise coorced into murdering their babies by the fathers who aren't married to them & don't want the responsibility of the fatherhood that their actions have produced.
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
pb
February 6, 2009 - 21:02 ET by RukusThat's an interesting point, I wonder what the statistics of that are compared to the men wanting them to keep the child against the woman that want to abort. Hmmm. Very good point! I just wish we didn't have to have these kinds of discussions and killing innocents was flat out illegal. One can only hope. After all, babies can't fight back. Very sad.
Gary
Sorry Al, I've used up my allotment of "give a crap!"
hey gary
February 6, 2009 - 21:16 ET by porpoiseboyi doubt there has every been a reliable statistic to bear it out.....but it is very logical. who has more "incentive" to force a woman to have an abortion but a "father" who doesn't want to be one? i submit that by default THEY are the ones forcing women to do things they otherwise would not. look at single motherhood today..it is as plain as the turd on gutters face.
cheers
mark
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
Yes pb
February 7, 2009 - 01:19 ET by RukusI am afraid you are right. It's sad. Good point pb. I hate it but you are right. Sigh!
Gary
Sorry Al, I've used up my allotment of "give a crap!"
Yes, you are evil
February 7, 2009 - 00:09 ET by CobraMan"I'm not evil"
Yes, you are evil.
You advocate the intentional killing of innocent children, unborn children, those who can't survive without the direct, intimate support of another human being.
You speak of the health and well being of women, yet discard any compassion for the children who will be killed during an abortion. Those children DIE! Their life is extinguished, their bodies destroyed before they can even savor the taste of their first lungful of air.
Those unborn children are the most vulnerable humans in existence. They can't defend themselves. They can't speak in protest against their slaughter. They are the true silent minority. Yet despite this unjust treatment of the innocent, you show less regard for their lives than a serial killer shows for their victims. This total disregard for the value of a human life, an innocent life, is revealed when you publicly advocate for those children's deaths. Not even a serial killer publicly announces his or her support for murder, not like you are doing here. A serial killer knows that his or her actions are wrong, that murders they commit can not be justified, can not be excused. You, on the other hand, believe that infanticide, the intentional killing of a human infant, is not only justified, but is necessary!
You not only openly advocate infanticide, you attempt to fool yourself and others into believing you are innocent in this matter, that you're actions do not constitute an immoral act, that their crimes are not your crimes, simply because you do not perform the act of abortion itself. Yet you not only approve of infanticide, you actively, publicly, support it. That make's you more than just complaisant in an immoral, unjustifiable act of murder, that makes you a willing participant.
You are a willing participant of infanticide. That, in my opinion, makes you evil.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Pretty Disgusting
February 5, 2009 - 16:50 ET by guttermouthFigures that this would happen in Florida. I hope everyone goes to jail. This is why we have abortion laws.
Pretty Disgusting
February 5, 2009 - 16:58 ET by guttermouthFigures that this would happen in Florida. I hope everyone goes to jail. This is why we have abortion laws.
My apologies everyone
February 5, 2009 - 17:08 ET by guttermouthI did not intentionally mean to post the same thing 20 times.
guttermouth
February 5, 2009 - 17:34 ET by sherylsimsamateur! I once posted 32 times! HA! I still hold the record. :)
Dammit!
February 5, 2009 - 17:36 ET by guttermouthI was hoping no one would call me on it. Although 32x is pretty bad. My excuse is that the site was on the fritz. And I'm sticking to it.
See there guttermouth...
February 5, 2009 - 17:48 ET by sherylsimsYou finally say something that makes some sense and the computer recognizes that and posts it more than once so everyone will see it. Wasn't that nice of your computer?
sheryl... LOL...that was
February 5, 2009 - 18:04 ET by bigtimersheryl...
LOL...that was a good zinger.
On the serious side, there were problems here earlier...weren't there?
I lost the site for a bit, it was moving really slow beforehand too.
Anybody else...anybody?
problems?
February 5, 2009 - 18:06 ET by sherylsimsWith posting? Or with guttermouth? I didn't notice any problems with posting... :)
um, smalltime?
February 5, 2009 - 18:10 ET by guttermouthI believe I just said THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE SITE!!!
Or did you mean anyone else BESIDES me?
→ Sorry gutter
February 5, 2009 - 18:14 ET by Cool ArrowI was having an energy-saving dishwasher installed, and I'm afraid the whole NB site got locked up as a result.
My new Dishwasher is hooked up to the ALGORE grid.
Thanks Cool... That's all
February 5, 2009 - 18:18 ET by bigtimerThanks Cool...
That's all I wanted to know.
The only problem with this site is that you are on it
February 5, 2009 - 18:16 ET by R D Helm-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
hardee-har-har
February 5, 2009 - 18:50 ET by guttermouthI snorted a little bit there...laughing...
To be the idiot you are
February 7, 2009 - 00:17 ET by RESTLESS 1would take more than snorting a little bit.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Hey little one... Don't
February 5, 2009 - 18:20 ET by bigtimerHey little one...
Don't be so touchy...I believed you, just wanted to see if others did too.
Calm down some.
effing monsters
February 5, 2009 - 17:17 ET by SickofLibsGood thing it was only infanticide, and not homicide. Then they'd really be in trouble.
And poor 'Sycloria' was almost 6 months pregnant. She's 18, so this is probably at least her 5th abortion. Sterilize her and throw her evil ass in jail for 20 years.
why are you suprised?
February 5, 2009 - 17:19 ET by candanceThis is exactly what Jill Stanek described seeing at a hospital in Chicago when she began campaigning for the born alive protection act. Planned Parenthood fought her tooth and nail to keep retroactive abortion legal, and at the time Obama's reply was:
we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.
Thanks to Obama's leadership the protection for live babies failed in Illinois. Jill Stanek described the experience thusly:
Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
Only after Bush signed a federal law did Obama suddenly realize it was safe to disagree with Planned Parenthood.
So gutter, what were you saying about this is why we have abortion laws?
The first thing that struck
February 5, 2009 - 17:33 ET by jdhawkThe first thing that struck me about this is: Wow! $1200 dollars for a bio hazard bag. Now, that's stimulative!!!
My only question is why isn't this in the Stimulus Bill?
Heck, who knows, maybe it is with as much information as we are getting out of the Senate on this issue.
The second thing that struck me about this is: How long will it take until the old, the infirmed, and the weak are dealt with the same as our children are now?
Question: What is the most difficult thing for a baby to do in the United States?
Answer: Getting born. There were about 4 million live births in the United States in 2000. There were about 1.3 million abortions. Of those, only 13,000 were performed due to rape or incest. Since 1973 and passage of Roe vs Wade over 40 million children have been aborted. So, there is about a 1 in 4 chance that a baby in the United States will never breath air.
The above story is about just another baby that didn't make it. Nothing to see here. Move along now. This is only one in about 3600 abortions that occured today alone.
jd,
February 5, 2009 - 17:46 ET by R D Helm"How long will it take until the old, the infirmed, and the weak are dealt with the same as our children are now?"
It won't take long after Obama forces socialized medicine on this nation. I read the other day that part of this "stimulus" bill includes provisions for building electronic databases with our medical info.
When rationing of health care becomes necessary, as it always does under socialized medicine, that database information will be used to pick who wins and who loses.
Mengele would be proud to have lived to see what I believe is just around the corner.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
jd... I'm glad you have
February 5, 2009 - 17:51 ET by bigtimerjd...
I'm glad you have the statistics here...for those who don't know.
All of this makes me weep, has for decades now...and will continue to do so.
abortionist --> terrorists
February 5, 2009 - 17:34 ET by LionKing"The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity."
Do you think the cause of death could have been neglect?
Wait. This is the same state that sponsored murder in the case of Terri Schiavo. Starving a person is not the same as dying of natural causes.
Putting a baby in a plastic bag is not the same as being too premature.
[ Quick solution: I recommend the Abortion Tax; $10,000 per abortion to fund alternatives to abortion. ]
Couldn't agree more
February 5, 2009 - 17:43 ET by bigtimerCouldn't agree more LK...
What made me absolutely blind with rage about the Schiavo at the end of all the court fights, congress, was the msm, with their daily countdown until her death...
Oh yeah, she was in a peaceful place as she was dying according to the msm and their talking head experts, I imagine these same sick people say the same thing about this baby girl dying...
Just move on...
Message from the left-wing extremists
February 5, 2009 - 17:36 ET by cocodrieDry your eyes and get with the program. It's only a human baby. Save the tears for the spotted owl and the snail darters. Now lets get with it here, there's lots more babies out there that need killing. Present Obama's depending on you.
If this offends anyone, just think how Shanice felt during her short life.
Jesus Loves You
The really freaky and
February 5, 2009 - 21:00 ET by GrannyGrump42The really freaky and surreal part is that they had to have an autopsy performed -- TO DETERMINE IF WHAT WAS IN THE BIOHAZARD BAG WAS A DEAD BABY OR JUST SOME BIOWASTE.
Welcome to the post-Roe era, where it takes an expert a week to differentiate between a baby and a tonsil.
Murder by all
February 5, 2009 - 17:38 ET by bigtimerMurder by all involved.
How lovely the mother had a nice name picked out for her six month premature daughter she murdered.
Wonderful people all.
I hope they all rot where the sun doesn't shine with time.
You need to understand the
February 5, 2009 - 21:05 ET by GrannyGrump42You need to understand the psychology of pregnancy, and how the abortion promoters twist it into a sales tactic. They convince the women that abortion merely *intercepts* the baby before it arrives. Which seems illogical until you understand the normal psychology of pregnancy, which is to take a while to wrap your mind around the fact that you really are pregnant, that there really is a baby in there.
The post-Roe mindset has thrown a monkey wrench into normal pregnancy psychology by convincing women that you're not REALLY pregnant until you ACCEPT it. Given that "This isn't happening to me!" and "How do I get off this roller coaster?!" are normal, the abortion promoters reassure the woman that an abortion just resets her to her normal, pre-pregnant state. Psychologically, she hasn't internalized the reality of the pregnancy or the baby's existence.
Until, of course, the baby comes out, alive or dead, and she gets smacked in the face by a reality the "experts" she trusted told her simply wasn't so.
This is just sick
February 5, 2009 - 17:51 ET by R D HelmThis "clinic" should be closed, its owner should be rotting in a prison cell, and this so-called "doctor" should have their license yanked for forever plus ten years.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
So should the mother as far
February 5, 2009 - 17:54 ET by bigtimerSo should the mother as far aas I am concerned.
6 month pregnant and decides she doesn't want to be bothered with Shanice anymore.
Poof...she's gone.
Just like trash blowing in the wind.
Terminology
February 5, 2009 - 17:57 ET by mikepatrWell, I, for one, don't use the PC terms that the pro-baby murder side of the issue would have me use. It's baby murder... plain and simple. Let's call it what it is... pre-meditated baby murder. And because 42 million baby murders weren't enough, the new POTUS signed an order restoring U.S. taxpayer funded baby murders in foreign countries and will soon probably sign the FOCA which will dramatically reduce any and all legal obstacles in murdering babies.
I think even Hitler would be taken back by the absolute horror of it all.
mp... You make a stark
February 5, 2009 - 18:43 ET by bigtimermp...
You make a stark point here with your last sentence.
I'm sure you could tell by my posts I agree with your same sentiments you just spoke of.
It's more than a crying shame what this country has become.
Premature
February 5, 2009 - 17:58 ET by sherylsimsThe fact that she was six months pregnant escaped me the first time I read it. I had my fourth baby at 7 months, and while she was tiny, she was able to breathe, eat, and poop without any assistance. She was only in the hospital 6 days and I was able to bring her home. She is now 10 years old and perfect and smart and healthy. That baby didn't die from being "Extremely premature" at all. She died from being smothered in a plastic bag. It breaks my heart.
→ Shanice
February 5, 2009 - 18:09 ET by Cool ArrowWe never knew you.
Your mother hated you
Your doctor didn't care
Your life means nothing . . . to them
Your death . . . our tragedy
There have been others
There will be more
We loved you
We never knew you
Pretty name, Shanice.
Why did she name you?
The mother who hated you?
Cool
February 5, 2009 - 18:13 ET by sherylsimsThat actually made me cry. That is beautiful. So very sad. I wonder if the baby's grandparents even knew she existed or cared, or would have wanted to help. Gosh! I gotta get off this and compose myself.
→ Thanks sheryl
February 5, 2009 - 18:17 ET by Cool ArrowNot near as good as Obama's Inauguration poet, but she didn't mean or understand a word she said.
Cool
February 5, 2009 - 18:20 ET by sherylsimsYeah, she was quite a wordsmith she was.
You don't know that Sycloria
February 5, 2009 - 21:10 ET by GrannyGrump42You don't know that Sycloria hated Shaniece. You need to understand how abortion facilities and abortion promoters (who have a political point to gain) manipulate the normal psychology of pregnancy into abortion sales. They're very good at what they do -- to the point where they can convince a mother that if she *really loves* her unborn baby, she'll go through with the abortion, to spare it a lifetime of wretched suffering.
It's really very dastardly. It takes the fact that it takes time first to wrap your brain around the fact that you're pregnant, and even more time to bond with the baby, and even more time to develop a realistic expectation of what motherhood will be like, and twists it all into an abortion sales kit.
It makes no sense to you if you're not pregnant and scared. Which means it makes no sense AFTER the abortion, when you're not pregnant any more and your baby is dead and you have to either convince yourself that it made sense, or accept the fact that it didn't make any goddam sense at all and you killed your baby.
It's Satanic, really, when you get right down to it. Turning fear into death.
Granny, well said.
February 6, 2009 - 22:58 ET by RESTLESS 1It seems to me that it behooves the abortion mills to sell their wares. They are literally "making a killing".
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
The Department of Health
February 5, 2009 - 18:24 ET by SickofLibsThe Department of Health believes Renelique committed malpractice by failing to ensure that licensed personnel would be present when Williams was there, AMONG OTHER MISTEPS.
This story, and AP's disgraceful spinning of it, is so unbelievable, I just keep re-reading it.
"OTHER MISTEPS"? Bagging up a live baby and putting it in a cardboard box to bleed to death is a MISTEP?
The writer should rot in hell along with the 'technician' and the 'mother'.
Actually, Belkis Gonzales
February 5, 2009 - 21:12 ET by GrannyGrump42Actually, Belkis Gonzales put the baby -- still alive -- in a biohazard bag and tosssed her up onto the roof to rot in the Florida sun. Later, after the body had started to really decompose, she brought the bag down and put it in the box.
That sounds a LOT like
February 5, 2009 - 19:33 ET by Radar_OneThat sounds a LOT like manslaughter to me...but what do I know, I'm only a Right Wing whackjob. The State of Florida should indict the Dr. depraved indiference, the clinic worker for manslaughter, practicing without a license and improper disposal of a humna body. IF the lungs were filled with air...the baby was alive and should be entitled to the same criminal rights as any other live person.
Now remember if someone had killed the mother at 23 weeks they would be charged with double homicide...what makes this any different???
Barack Obama= Half Honkey...ALL Donkey
I thought I could handle
February 5, 2009 - 19:35 ET by mostlymoderateI thought I could handle just about anything but I honestly just got light headed and had a chilling sensation come up from my toes to my forehead. This is one of the most disgusting stories I have read since the New Year. Placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.?
My heart breaks.
February 5, 2009 - 19:48 ET by dborschjr68In a bag? A newborn baby, into a bag and thrown into the trash? How could anyone do that? Seriously. How evil can we really be?
"Liberate tutume ex inferis, liberal puppets." Me.
Change the headline
February 5, 2009 - 19:59 ET by FrankBto read "kitten" or "puppy" placed in a plastic bag to die, and the left would demand prosecution. Unfortunately, this was only a human child.
if you don't read this,
February 5, 2009 - 20:02 ET by clinging to my guns and my religionyou will miss the most amazing story ever of the abortion that did not take place:
'Pam knows about the pain of considering abortion.
More than 21 years ago, she and her husband, Bob, were serving as missionaries to the Philippines and praying for a fifth child. Pam contracted amoebic dysentery, an infection of the intestine caused by a parasite found in a contaminated food or drink. She entered into a coma and was treated with strong antibiotics before they discovered she was pregnant. Doctors urged her to abort the baby for her own safety and told her that the medicines had caused irreversible damage to her baby. She refused the abortion and cited her Christian faith as the reason for her hope that her son would be born without the devastating disabilities physicians predicted.
The doctors "didn't think of it as a life, they thought of it as a mass of fetal tissue," Pam said.
While pregnant, Pam nearly lost their baby four times but refused to consider abortion. She recalled making a pledge to God with her husband, "If you will give us a son, we'll name him 'Timothy,' and we'll make him a preacher."
Pam ultimately spent the last two months of her pregnancy in bed and, eventually, gave birth to a health baby boy August 14, 1987.
Pam's youngest son is indeed a preacher. He preaches in prisons, makes hospital visits, and serves with his father's ministry in the Philippines .
He also plays football. Pam's son is Tim Tebow.
Last year, the University of Florida's star quarterback, became the first sophomore in history to win college football's highest award, the Heisman Trophy. Tim's notoriety and the family's inspiring story have given Pam numerous opportunities to speak on behalf of women's centers across the country.
She was the keynote speaker at the Oct. 23, 2008, benefit banquet for two Louisville ministries. A Woman's Choice Resource Center offers such services as free pregnancy tests, post-abortion counseling, adoption information, and material support. Nicole's Place is a companion ministry that provides support services for women in need. Several Louisville-area Kentucky Baptist churches and Long Run Baptist Association help support both ministries. A Woman's Choice board chairman, John Schmitt, reported at the banquet that in the 20 years since the resource center opened, 4,500 children have been saved from abortion -- 400 in this year alone.
Speaking of the thousands of lives saved, Pam Tebow said, "That just blows my mind. Every little baby you save matters." '
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke
clinging
February 5, 2009 - 22:02 ET by BlondeI knew where you were going...as soon as I started reading that.
Thanks for sharing it with everyone else.
the excruciating pity is that....
February 5, 2009 - 22:10 ET by clinging to my guns and my religion...we will never have the chance to know who and what baby shanice would have become. think of all the babies who will never have the opportunity to do great things because their mothers chose to do the worst thing. wow, where are the kleenexes??
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke
Disgusting
February 5, 2009 - 20:12 ET by stratmanThe abortion clinic owner who cut the umbilical cord and chucked the living infant into a plastic bag to die would be charged with murder in a sane universe. This person showed depraved indifference to human life.
Dr. Renelique, Abortion Specialist, has had multiple black marks on his medical license in Florida and New York. This guy sounds like a real piece of work. What kept him from arriving to the clinic for over two hours after being told the patient was not doing well? Where was backup? Why all the meds and different locations used?
Is this a classic case of midlevel providers or lower performing medicine (giving meds) without a qualified physician present despite what state laws may allow?
Use http://www.docboard.org/ and search on this dirtbag in Florida and New York to learn more.
You can use the above link to search on your own physicians and other healthcare worker types. Another similar database is the American Medical Associtions own search function, though the AMA requires lots of click-throughs and confusing differentiation between member and non-member docs that require even more clicking.
stratman: Wasn't Roe v. Wade
February 5, 2009 - 21:07 ET by QueenMumstratman: Wasn't Roe v. Wade supposed to assure that women wouldn't have to suffer the ministrations of back-alley abortionists? When someone who has purportedly sworn to do no harm makes his/her living destroying human life, that person has sold his/her soul to the devil. Eventually, I would guess that the lure of easy money completely obscures any sense of humanity.
"Wasn't Roe v. Wade
February 5, 2009 - 23:35 ET by stratmanGood point. Incompetence and depravity is found in both back alleys and clean, well lit, well funded clinics.
Medical school graduates more often recite something other than the Hippocratic Oath. Among other reasons, today's students don't feeeel comfortable pledging to not give abortifacants.
Instead, today's enlightened Liberals would rather recite something diluted like that written by man named after a noodle. I'm sure the man is very nice and smart. My cynicism is directed at those students choosing a limp noodle oath versus the power and beauty of the Hippocratic Oath that connects physicians spiritually and professionally together throughout history.
I honestly do not remember what my class chose as an "oath". I, and a few others, stuck with the Hippocratic oath - it's worked pretty well for 6000 years, so it's good enough for me.
The words "do no harm" are not from Hippocrates. And even the doing of no harm in oaths had to be modified by today's relativists, otherwise abortion and euthanasia could not be performed in good conscience. In reality, many treatments in medicine first cause harm in order to provide cure or comfort - all medicines are poisons to something in the body and you can't do open heart surgery without trauma to the body. This, in my opinion, is not an argument in favor of abortion and euthanasia. Funny how the supporters of these two procedures are oftentimes against capital punishment even for conclusively proven viscious murderers.
Money, lack of morals/ethics/character, an odd sense of social responsibilty or compassion are all justifications/antecedents for performing cosmetic abortions. I'm sure there are many more reasons. Definitely, the money doesn't prevent the performing of abortions, though from what I've heard, the money isn't that good. And there are OB/GYN and surgeons that do abortions for free.
Most perform abortions out of a sense of "duty" to provide "care" and make the bulk of their money from traditional OB/GYN or surgical practices.
guttermouth... This came
February 5, 2009 - 20:31 ET by Clear thinkerguttermouth...
This came to mind as I was reading some of your comments, so it would do you well to read it... Obama Ok’s Killing Of Babies World-Wide
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
People are shocked? Why?
February 5, 2009 - 20:50 ET by QueenMumPeople are shocked? Why? Because the doctor arrived late and the baby was born alive? The clinic's owner who put the baby in a biohazard bag and threw it away was merely following protocol. Whether or not the doctor had been present when the woman went into labor, the abortion was successful - the baby died. Our Dear Leader would have no problem with this outcome. After all, since it was the intention of the mother to have an abortion, the child had to die. That was Pres. Obama's argument against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Calling the birth of a live infant a botched abortion is more than I can wrap my head around. And isn't it somewhat disturbing that the young mother named her aborted child even though, according to abortion advocates, the child-to-be is not really a person? This case certainly points out the many holes in the abortion rights argument.
Evening Queen... I'm
February 5, 2009 - 21:13 ET by bigtimerEvening Queen...
I'm certainly not shocked, just always more than sad when I hear these stories.
The many holes indeed, what does any true leftist with their agenda care, they are heartless souls as far as I am concerned.
Their tentacles are everywhere.
Reaching out, touching us all, in one way or the other.
Fighting to live
February 5, 2009 - 20:55 ET by BDelaneyTalk about fighting for your life! Sounds to me like God really wanted that baby to live and they just threw it away. They're just monsters!
Fighting to live
February 5, 2009 - 20:57 ET by BDelaneyTalk about fighting for your life! Sounds to me like God really wanted that baby to live and they just threw it away. They're just monsters!
The doctor should be charged with murder.
On the headline: The intent
February 5, 2009 - 20:55 ET by GrannyGrump42On the headline: The intent of an abortion is a dead baby. The baby ended up dead. What was there to botch?
SSDD.
Late abortion? Check. Unlicensed clinic owner attending to patients because the doctor isn't around? Check. Live birth? Check. Killing the live-born baby? Check. So far, an ordinary day. (The CDC's last admission was 400-500 REPORTED live births from abortions annually, with the caveat that the number is no doubt grossly underreported because "it's like turning yourself in to the IRS for an audit" to report the birth. So live births from abortions are literally an everyday occurrence. The only shocker here is that the AP is covering the story at all -- AND (here's where I wondered if I needed to pinch myself) it mentioned that babies Shaniece's age COULD survive, that the prematurity alone wasn't necessarily fatal, and that killing somebody who is likely to die soon is still murder.
Liberals revamp abortion laws
February 5, 2009 - 21:06 ET by Sergeant ROCKLiberals will simply stipulate in new abortion 'rights' legislation, that if the baby, I mean 'fetus', remains alive after an abortion, you'll be allowed [time to be determined] into a plastic, hit in the head with a hammer, or other means to complete the abortion. That way the killing of the newborn is still covered under 'abortion rights' and doctors engaging in the practice are not otherwise guilty of a criminal act.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
No, they just do what they
February 5, 2009 - 21:15 ET by GrannyGrump42No, they just do what they did in Illinois -- draft a law that says the the determination of viability is made *by the abortionist prior to the abortion*, so that anything that comes out breathing, kicking, squirming, crying, etc., is legally "previable tissue".
And here I thought..
February 5, 2009 - 21:17 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. all of Hitler's doctors were dead.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
GG42... I just want to
February 5, 2009 - 22:31 ET by bigtimerGG42...
I just want to take the time to thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the contributions you have made here on NBs regarding abortion.
They are invaluable.
I am grateful...
I also feel the same as you do.
Why is it the same bunch
February 5, 2009 - 21:55 ET by RR GOPWhy is it the same bunch (Commies) that are fine with killing unborn infants (and I guess even "accidentally" born ones) raise such a fuss about executing murderers, homeowners shooting burglars, and our military and allies killing and *gasp* torturing high-level terrorists?
Oh, and spanking and saying 'no' to the ones who survive the 'pro choice' gauntlet is evil.
At least the Christians that hold candlelight vigils for the Ted Bundy crowd are against abortion, too.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Sickening. Just sickening...
February 5, 2009 - 22:24 ET by MotherThis whole article makes me feel so upset. WTF is WRONG with people?!
Where is PETA? I mean they are for ANIMAL rights for frick's sake...oh wait...nevermind...they kill animals too.
There is something really wrong with a society that wants to annihilate their own offspring. Talk about the ultimate self-loathing.
Grr. Now my sorrow is being replaced with anger.
Why stop there? I mean...heck...Susan Smith was just performing a realllllllllly late term abortion. So? CHOICE. Right? HUH?
Ugh. Sad again.
*Swipes tear from cheek*
This is the most disturbing story I've ever seen.
February 5, 2009 - 22:42 ET by mizflame98That clinic needs to be shut down and everyone in that room sent to jail. The doctor should also be put behind bars because it was his responsibility to have properly licensed people. How much do you want to bet that the liberals will take this story and use it as an example for why abortion should stay legal? If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hug and kiss my kids now.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
Murder
February 6, 2009 - 10:53 ET by Blogger Guy00001Reasons for the lie in the headline
the writer actually is in favor of what happened
the writer is deathly afraid that militant feminists will launch an attack on anyone who associates abortion with murder
the writer thinks it's better to kill a few babies after birth than to restrict the killing before they are born
the update i just read is even more shocking if thats possible
February 6, 2009 - 10:54 ET by justathotview it at http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/06/president-obama-infanticide-happens/
Double Standard
February 6, 2009 - 12:24 ET by IndyAdamIf a pregnant woman and her child dies as a result of homicide, the perp is charged with double murder. The child is not even out of the womb! However, if a "child" is not wanted, even if it can survive outside the womb, it is legal. If a pregnant mother is in a car accident, resulting from an idiot drunk driver and her child dies in her womb, the drunk driver can be charged with negligent homicide - or worse.
Here, the baby was "BORN" and evidence suggests he/she/ had started to breathe on his/her own and they are calling it a "BOTCHED ABORTION"?!
The only botched abortion I can see is the amorality of today's "leftist" society.
HEY LEFTIE... DON'T TREAD ON ME!
Double-standards
February 6, 2009 - 12:31 ET by Sergeant ROCKI remember, and I think it was in CA, a story about a guy that punched a pregnant woman in the stomach. she miscarried and he was charged with murder.
I wonder what would've happened had the assailant been an abortionist?
How can it just be a fetus when you're talking about abortion, but a human life in any other circumstance?? Abortion has no legal leg to stand on that I can see.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Amen, George
February 6, 2009 - 12:44 ET by IndyAdamI know this is an oxymoron, but the problem with our legal and political systems, is that they are full of lawyers. Every problem in our societal smelting pot has at least one lawyer's fingerprints all over it.
HEY LEFTIE... DON'T TREAD ON ME!
First, we kill all of the lawyers..
February 7, 2009 - 07:49 ET by Sergeant ROCKJudicial activism results in this kind of nonsense that defies logic. And you'd be correct. It would seem that there's a direct correalation between the increasing number of lawyers involved in government and how stupid government has become.
I believe it was Jefferson that said 'laws should be written so that even the common man can understand them.' Not anymore.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
statistics
February 6, 2009 - 19:06 ET by katainkentAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke
katainkent
February 6, 2009 - 22:54 ET by RESTLESS 1Thanks for bringing some perspective to this. It makes no sense to argue with those that couldn't care less about innocent children. Best to make arguments to those that with an open mind; perhaps we can win converts by appealing to those that can reason.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
arguing versus answering
February 7, 2009 - 09:32 ET by lotrGood points, except I would not call it "arguing" (speaking for myself, anyway).
I am not deluded into thinking that I am going to persuade via logic any madman who advocates the mass killing of human beings in utero as a "good" thing, or who does not believe that human beings have any status over other life forms. However, when the emotional slogans and hyperbole of the pro-abortion-Left, which are already parroted in the media and on campuses without answer, are posted publically on this conservative blog, where there are countless other readers perusing the threads -- I think that "good men should refrain from doing nothing." Why else have a blog, then?
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
absolutely - if more
February 7, 2009 - 09:42 ET by TruthMongerabsolutely - if more pro-lifers would relentlessly argue those kids might have been saved
the tide is turning
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
This b$tch must have voted for "that one"
February 6, 2009 - 22:51 ET by RESTLESS 1After all, noone likes a good baby killin' like obama.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I am STILL sickened by this
February 7, 2009 - 02:37 ET by Radar_OneI am STILL sickened by this entire event. The baby had air in its lungs and a name...The NO SHOW M.D. and the damn UNCERTIFIED clinic worker who "DROPPED the baby onto the floor and let it bleed out" should be prosecuted for CAPITAL murder. I will never understand how a 23 week old baby is not considered viable and C.O.D. is listed as "extreme prematurity."
I AM DISGUSTED
Barack Obama= Half Honkey...ALL Donkey
So why the inaccurate,
February 7, 2009 - 03:35 ET by JerSo why the inaccurate, misleading headline when something along the lines of "Fla. abortion doctor investigated following infanticide" would more accurately convey the main idea of the horrifying story?
The details of this story are indeed shocking and repellent. But the question concerns an allegedly misleading headline which excludes any mention of "infanticide". Unless I overlooked some key information in the linked article, it has yet to be definitively established that the prematurely-born baby was in fact 'killed' by another. To implictly but deliberately suggest the abortion doctor may be legally culpable for a homicide before the necessary preconditions for such charge have been sufficiently developed could subject the publisher to a suit for libel. The editor acted prudently.
Jer
Jer, if the mother had given
February 7, 2009 - 07:21 ET by GrannyGrump42Jer, if the mother had given birth at home, put the baby in a plastic bag and tossed her on the roof, would there be any question that it was infanticide? If she had given birth in an emergency room bathroom, and an ER nurse had put the baby in a plastic bag and tossed her onto the roof, would there be any doubt that this was infanticide?
Why does the fact that abortion staff, and not somebody else, put the baby in a plastic bag and threw her on the roof, suddenly throw doubt onto whether this was infanticide?
The fact that people are ready to make any excuse for bad behavior by abortionists lets them get away with murder -- literally every day -- killing live born infants with no more hue and cry than they'd get for failure to lock their filing cabinets at night.
Granny... I don't believe
February 7, 2009 - 18:00 ET by JerGranny...
I don't believe anyone--left or right, pro-choice or pro-life--is trying to defend the absolutely horrific circumstances of this case; and every state of Florida governmental, legal, and licensing agency with the power and authority to do so seems poised to throw the book at this doctor.
My opinion was strictly addressing and limited to the wording of the headline, which, after all, was the question posed.
Jer
Some Quick Thoughts
February 7, 2009 - 19:17 ET by stratmanJer:
The article I read said the infant had "air" in her lungs, meaning the baby breathed after birth. This would appear to be a "live" birth.
The legal question of a "live" birth or a deceased baby at birth according to state statutes is unknown to me. Since you are an attorney with access to legal resources we do not, maybe you can help expidite this info.
It may be possible that despite air in the lungs, the baby would have died following birth because of some horrorific genetic mutation, infection, or other truama. In this case, resusitative and or supportive airway and cardiac measure may not take place given the degree of anomaly. While I have not personally been involved with an anencephalic infant (no brain), my understanding is that most would not try heroic measures to keep the baby alive. This would NOT mean dump the baby on the floor, leave naked on a counter or chuck in a plastic bag until dead. Respect and humanity must always be shown!
But, there was no discussion of antecedent reasons for the baby to die "naturally" following birth. And, the cutting of the cord without clamping could be a cause for hemorrhaging to death, something a coroner can easily figure out.
That the abortion clinc owner pushed/knocked the infant to the floor is an indication of their depraved indifference to a human (body), probably enough reason to bring forth charges. If I had done anything like that during a delivery while in training, I would be removed from the program pronto, with at least a suspension of licensure, retraining and maybe a criminal investigation as well. I knew a med student that was kicked out of OB rotation when he was asked if he'd like to deliver the baby that was about crowning and he said "I'll give it a twirl". There are some things one does not say or do in front of a pregnant woman.
As far as the absent abortion doctor, not knowing the state laws or his contractual obligations, it is hard to say if "murder" charges could be filed. Probably the abortion clinic was responsible for staffing, maybe including backup physicians/nurse practitioners. For the sake of argument, not knowing why the doctor was not present, if another emergency preceded the delivery which the doctor was obliged to take care of, then he may not be criminally responsible for what happened in the clinic. But, the physician may be responsible if he could have been at the clinic and was not, or he continued to order medicines that provoked the delivery while knowing he may not be at the clinic in a timely fashion, or ordered the staff to keep the patient there instead of sending her to a hospital when he knew he could not be there in a timely fashion.
Of course, the doctor's degree of liability is shaped by how accurate and timely the communication was from the staff, especially if the doctor was an employee versus the employer, since he would have more or less control over the quality and capabilities of the staff.
I'm sure there are other legal issues. Jer, this medicolegal crap gives me a headache.
WHAT!!!!
February 7, 2009 - 09:52 ET by Radar_OneAre you FRIGGIN KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!
The baby was DROPPED from the chair to the floor then placed in a biohazard bag. What planet are you living on??? There was some serious neglect there. there was NO LICENSED DOCTOR in the room, the "clinic owner" let that 23 week old baby die. I can't believe the hypocracy in this case, if the baby was a dog...they'd have been indicted for animal cruelty, if the mother and baby were killed it would be DOUBLE HOMICIDE, how does the deliberate and negligent act of letting this baby die NOT CONSTITUTE A FELONY?
Barack Obama= Half Honkey...ALL Donkey
No, Radar...I'm not "friggin"
February 7, 2009 - 18:10 ET by JerNo, Radar...
I'm not "friggin kidding" you. You can speculate all you want, and pepper your post with all kinds of "if"s, but the investigation of the doctor is still in progress.
Note my above response to Granny...I'm only commenting on the wording of the headline--not what is likely to [and hopefully will] occur in the future regarding further legal action against the doctor.
Jer
Abortionist loses medical license
February 8, 2009 - 12:22 ET by Sergeant ROCKAbortionist loses medical license
Florida officials today revoked the medical license of an abortionist who is named in a civil lawsuit that alleges a breathing baby was stuffed into a biohazard bag along with chemicals and tossed into a garbage bin.
******
Should the case result in a determination there was a live birth and homicide, it could have national implications because of the issue of care that abortionists are required to provide to babies who survive abortions. While he was a state lawmaker, President Obama opposed such rules, arguing they imposed too great a burden on the abortionist.
The case alleges:
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent conduct of the Defendants, Plantiff Sycloria witnessed the live birth and suffering of her daughter as she struggled for life in pain, moving and breathing on the recliner. She witnessed Belkis Gonzalez enter the room and knock the live baby from the recliner seat where she had given birth to the floor. She then witnessed the murder of her daughter by Belkis Gonzalez before her eyes, as Belkis Gonzalez picked up a large pair of orange shears and cut the umbilical cord connecting mother and daughter. Belkis Gonzalez did not clamp the baby's umbilical cord allowing the baby to bleed out and also threw or by some accounts literally swept the breathing live child into a biohazard bag to suffocate and bleed to death. There are reports that Belkis Gonzalez also placed a caustic chemical in the bag with the live baby.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012