it's been 30 years - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-03-2003, 11:50 AM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:04 PM
No, martha, it wasn´t, but I´m getting tired of that thread.

Everybody knows my opinion and can reread it - especially in the other thread about the same topic - I don´t want to do ten hours of statistic research, another ten hours of posting here, I´m not going to waste my time.

The important thing is not when a child starts to live or how we interprete around what is and what isn´t in our opinion, the important thing is that the mother is the one who is in closest contact with the fetus and therefore has the right to make the decision she makes.

To transfer that right to the state is not fair. And as I pointed out, state´s laws can change easily, especially with the upcoming cloning, probably fooling around with the baby´s DNS, etc. This is what leads us to a brave new world, not the decision of the mother who naturally, in most cases, loves the fetus, even if she is going to abort.

I would like to note again that the "pro-life" demonstrations I heard about are held in front of clinics, where women who enter there to make an abortion get yelled and spit at, and are called murders. This is totally without class and without any respect. I think the decision is not easy most of the times.

And final note, to compare it with slavery is ridiculous too. A fetus, most of the time, is created out of making love. A relation between slave owner and slave never was created out of love. To compare the process of an abortion - also if it may be cruel and killing - to slavery, is de-humanizing in itself.

I´m outta here. Have fun, y´all.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 01:21 PM   #77
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



And in dealing with these questions, why should anyone prevent a parent from killing a 3-year old?




Excellent dodge and nice hotpoint! You guys really know how to avoid the issue of whether or not a woman can decide what happens with her body! Bring up child murder! Equate them!


I'm with whenhiphop...

I'm gone to go celebrate my rights as a living, breathing woman!
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 01:27 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Excellent dodge and nice hotpoint! You guys really know how to avoid the issue of whether or not a woman can decide what happens with her body! Bring up child murder! Equate them!


I'm with whenhiphop...

I'm gone to go celebrate my rights as a living, breathing woman!
No ne is disputing an individual's right to decide what happens to their body. The dodge is that the other life involved is ignored. Abortion affects at least two people.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 05:14 PM   #79
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 07:04 PM
The humanity of the fetus does matter. No one has the right to decide wether another huma deserves to live or die. Just because you are amother doesn't give you the right to decide if the human who is inside you lives or dies. Its not about control over a woman's body. A fetus is not part of a woman's body. It has its own genetic code which makes it not any part of the woman. This is a case of control of one human by another human. Once a life has been conceived it is inviolate for all but the most extreme circumstaces (such as the pregnacy being a threat to the mother's life). I accept there is quite abit or moral grey area around the issue of rape/incest but i do not believe that abortion is not the best or only solution to a rape induced pregnancy. A messy area but not teh majority of abortion cases and as such should be dealt with sperately.

It is unfortunate that many women see pregnancy as only a burden or atleast primarily as one, and this unfortunately is a product of societal attitudes in most cases perpetuated by men. Yes pregancy is not all smiles and happiness and in the later stages it places severe limitations on a woman but it is (from what I've been told) also a joyus occasion and creates a bond which we as men are not a part of. There are plusses and minuses. Women do have a burden in the creation of human life but it is also a gift. Wether the gift outweighs the burden I'll never know, but I would like to think the balance could be positive if societal attudes toward women were made better and that more care over how pregnacy affects a woman's life be given. A woman should not have her career hurt becuase she has a pregnacy. That is society's fault not the pregnancy. Many changes need to be made but this need for changes does not make abortions okay. Just becuase society makes a pregnancy and motherhood a burden doean't mean it is okay to terminate a life to ease it.

Women wouldn't be talking about control over their body over pregnancy if there were no constraining side effects. If babies popped out with no physical cost to the woman the control over the body issue would be mute. The control over the body statement to my interpretation is more about a woman's ability to control her life. Society exacts heavy indemnities from a woman when she has a baby and this is wrong. We need to change society so there are no indemnities to the woman except the physical discomforts. They are there but I don't think physical discforts no matter how severe (I know I'll never know the full pain of it but if I imagine getting kicked in the crotch continuously for an hour I think I might be getting close) are not justifiable cause for the killing of a human being.

Now I am not saying to women enjoy your gift of pregnancy and quit whining. Please don't think that is what I mean. Rather I am saying that this is not just a biological issue it is also a societal one. If the social penatlies of motherhood were removed and only the physical discomfort and limitations of being pregnant remained would you say those were enough to end a human life?
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 08:03 PM   #80
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword
A fetus is not part of a woman's body. It has its own genetic code which makes it not any part of the woman. This is a case of control of one human by another human.
Precisely. And for those who say it is the woman's body, how do you explain a woman having a penis for 9 months?
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 08:16 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword
The humanity of the fetus does matter. No one has the right to decide wether another huma deserves to live or die.
Well, isn't a large part of the debate centred on the discussion whether or not a fetus is actually a human being as such? Perhaps you think it is human from conception, but many others do not, so it certainly seems like the "humanity" of the fetus matters.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-03-2003, 08:19 PM   #82
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Why don't people weigh in on their definition of human? I know nbc didn't want to play the semantics game (neither do I really) but I'm interested to know how people define 'human'.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 08:43 PM   #83
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 02:04 PM
What is humanity? I think humanity is anything that resembles a human. A fetus is a human-to-be, but not quite human. It doesn't look like a human, it doesn't act like a human, and it doesn't walk like a human. In my book that isn't a human.

I have a slight problem with abortion, because it's greedy and selfish. However, while a fetus may inhibit the soul or the spirit of someone it could probably care less about dying. I mean really! Think about the typical day of a fetus: constant bathes in warm, icky goo, no one to talk to, limited space to move your legs. It sounds like hell! And if that's all the fetus knows, why wouldn't they embrace death's sweet embrace? I'm sure that this God everyone is speaking of would understand their circumstance and would cut them some slack in getting through the front door of heaven. Don't ya think?

In fact, you might say we're doing those little tikes a favor by giving them a free pass from living in this hell-hole we call Earth. Additionally, those peanut-sized tots won't have to blush embarassingly when their "leader", George Dubya Bush gives another banal State of Union speech. (cough). ---Don't get me started!------

Okay, I'm joking......or am I?
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 08:48 PM   #84
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 03:04 PM

Completely unamusing. Please don't hijack threads like that.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 09:33 PM   #85
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

But still, I can´t understand how you can compare the decision of Hitler to send 6 millions of Jews (or others) into a concentraion camp, to put gas douches on,... I will not continue with that; anyway I don´t understand how you can compare this crime to an abortion. No way.

Have you been to Europe? If you go, please visit a concentration camp/ museum. There are still a very few survivors who will tell you stories like they got treated with a whip when they were not working fast enough, then in the evening they were sleeping on the cold floor, and the blood on their back was freezing onto the floor, so the next morning they had to be ripped off the floor in order to go to work again.

Have you seen the great, four hour long, film by Steven Spielberg? It gives you only a glimpse of what was going on.

I think, as cruel as an abortion may be, it can´t be equalled with the crimes that were committed to those who "lived" and were burned alive in concentration camps. This was one of the worst crimes in history, Beth.

Maybe abortion is killing, and maybe it is very cruel - but you can´t put those two in the same row.
Alright, be forewarned: the following is lengthy (I'll be shocked if anyone actually reads this beginning to end), but perhaps it more clearly delineates the parallel I see. The article is by author Gregory Koukl, actually it's a transcipt of a radio talk:

_____________________

I have a piece here that I would like to read to you. It's not ordinary that I read a piece in its entirety, but in this particular case I think it is critical. It's not only a critical issue, but it is said so well and so effectively that I just want to pass on what columnist Mona Charen has written November 9 in a piece that is simply entitled "Harvesting Part for Sale."

If you have not heard anything about this, I suggest that you sit down. If you have younger children around the radio, they don't need to hear this. You're going to have a hard time hearing what I am about to read, to think that this is possible in our country.

Oftentimes we talk about casual slippery slopes and how one thing leads to another. I have talked and written in the past about moral velocitizing, the idea that when you take another step in moral decay for a few months or years it seems radical because it is such a change from what things have been like. Then we get used to it and it seems like normal. It's like when you go out on the freeway and you accelerate to 60 mph. You're moving pretty good until you get used to 60 mph and then it just seems like it's not fast enough. Then you accelerate to 80 mph and that's fast until you get used to it, and then it is just regular and you need to accelerate even faster. So you go faster, and faster, and faster at deadly speeds. It seems like you're safe.

Morally, we have become velocitized because every time we take another step for just a few moments we feel uncomfortable. Then we get used to it and it is ordinary. As Frances Shaeffer has said, "What is unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today, and ordinary and commonplace tomorrow."

We are witnessing a moral velocitizing in our culture. We have been witnessing it for some time. I have argued that one of the things that has contributed to this is the increasing death of humanness. The idea of being a human being is not something that makes one valuable or worthwhile in itself. We have been chipping away at the essential, inherent value of human beings, and we have been doing it with abortion, infanticide, doctor-assisted suicide. All of these things have chipped away.

In fact, twenty years ago when Dr. Frances Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop produced material that basically asked, What has happened to the human race, they warned that it would come to this. Everybody thought these people were like Chicken Little crying about the world coming to an end. But their sober warnings have come to pass as little by little we can see human dignity being chipped away, such that the unique value of humanness is dying.

And so, in 1973 when men of the Supreme Court consigned 1.3 million unborn human beings to the grave every year through the Roe v. Wade decision, it set aggressively in course a way of thinking about humanity that says, There is a life that is not worthy to be lived."

This, by the way, was a motto of the Third Reich. A few years back, I wrote a piece called "Nazi Doctors" and I talked about having read the book by Robert J. Lifton by the same title. He asked himself the question, How is it that a culture could have come to this point and had doctors committed to caring for life and saving lives actually participate in one of the greatest killing machines the world has ever seen? A part of the answer was in the first 90 pages of the book, which is all that I read. I didn't read the whole psychoanalytic position that he espoused and developed about how doctors get schizophrenic.

I read the first 90 pages that was really the sociological effort of the Nazi regime to encourage people to find this whole approach palatable. Ergo the slogan, there is a life that's not worthy of being lived. This is the pro-choice position, actually, in many ways. And we see the same thing happening now.

But you know when I use the term Nazi here, many people are offended because it is easy to conjure up the image of the Third Reich, this malevolent image, to kind of color your argument. All you have to do is cry "Nazi" and people will immediately be influenced in your favor because of this powerful term.

Some have argued whenever anyone cries "Nazi" this is a good reason to reject their whole point of view because nothing could really compare. Nothing in our country could be properly characterized by that kind of comparison. Well, I don't know. You be the judge. I've been to Auschwitz. I've been to Majdanek. I've been to some of these camps where you see blankets made of human hair, the lampshades made of human skin, and the piles of teeth that have been busted out for the gold that was in them, where human beings became a cash crop. I've seen it.

That is all a backdrop to what I am about to read to you, published here in the Daily News in Southern California, Thursday, November 11, 1999, by Mona Charen. She is a syndicated columnist with the Creators Syndicate and therefore, her piece is read nationwide. You might have read it in another publication. But let me just read it.

"Kelly" (a pseudonym) was a medical technician working for a firm that trafficked in baby body parts. This is not a bad joke. Nor is it the hysterical propaganda of an interest group. It was reported in the American Enterprise magazine–the intelligent, thought-provoking, and utterly trustworthy publication of the American Enterprise Institute.

The firm Kelly worked for collected fetuses from clinics that performed late-term abortions. She would dissect the aborted fetuses in order to obtain 'high-quality" parts for sale. They were interested in blood, eyes, livers, brains, and the thymuses, among other things.

"What we did was to have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go there on certain days. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and universities were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts. We only wanted the most perfect specimens.' That didn't turn out to be difficult. Of the hundreds of late-term fetuses Kelly saw on a weekly basis, only about 2 percent had abnormalities. About 30 to 40 babies per week were around 30 weeks old–well past the point of viability.

Is this legal? Federal law makes it illegal to buy and sell human body parts. But there are loopholes in the law. Here's how one body parts company–Opening Lines Inc.–disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: "Turn your patient's decision into something wonderful."

For its buyers, Opening Lines offers "the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it." Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An "intact trunk" fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law's prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to "perform the harvesting," as well as to "offset the clinic's overhead." Opening Lines further boasted, "Our daily average case volume exceeds 1,500 and we serve clinics across the United States."

Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, "a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, 'Got you some good specimens–twins.' I looked at him and said: 'There's something wrong here. They are moving. I can't do this. This is not in my contract.' I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this."

But she did go back and dissect them later. The twins were only the beginning. "It happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, we had live births come back to us. Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead."

American Enterprise asked Kelly if abortion procedures were ever altered to provide specific body parts. "Yes. Before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The (abortionist) would get us the most complete intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating."

The magazine pressed Kelly again. Was the type of abortion ever altered to provide an intact specimen, even if it meant producing a live baby? "Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens."

Some practical souls will probably swallow hard and insist that, well, if these babies are going to be aborted anyway, isn't it better that medical research should benefit? No. This isn't like voluntary organ donation. This reduces human beings to the level of commodities. And it creates of doctors who swore an oath never to kill, the kind of people who can beat a breathing child to death with tongs.


That is the end of the article.

This ghastly practice is getting more press. One wonders why it isn't on the front page of every newspaper in this country. There is a massive industry for human body parts coming from unborn children whose lives are being taken, sometimes after they are delivered, so that we can have "the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it."

This kind of news absolutely boggles the imagination.

As I mentioned earlier, when you raise the issue of Nazi Germany, people scoff. That's just inflammatory rhetoric.

Well, how would you describe this?

Let's forget about Nazi Germany for just a moment. Let's just look at what we have come to. Again, it's hard to know how to respond because if people can read this and say, Well, I don't know what the problem is, then I don't know what to say to them. If this is not obviously barbaric, I don't know what to say. If you can't see it for yourself, then I say that you are desperately morally velocitized and the spirit of the age has overtaken you.

Sometimes there is what can be called "unbelievable unbelief." You know, in John 11 when Lazarus was raised from the dead, and those who were aware of the resurrection of Lazarus were so incensed at the powerful miracle that was done that was good evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, as He claimed, that they purposed to destroy Lazarus, as well as Jesus. They would kill Jesus, he was the troublemaker. But the problem was the proof was still walking around–Lazarus. They'd have to kill him too.

It's kind of wild. You think, Wake up, folks! You only want to kill this man because he is proof against your view. But they didn't get it. Sometimes people are so rebellious against authority that they can't see what is so obvious.

Matt Drudge recently lost his job on the Fox News Channel. As I understand it, the reason was that he had footage he wanted to show on the air that was about a quite amazing medical procedure. It was a procedure that allowed doctors to rectify pre-natal problems by doing surgery on the unborn before it was delivered. They could actually go in and do spina bifida surgery to rectify this problem. To be more precise, they didn't exactly go in, they brought the baby out. That is, they incised the mother's abdomen and moved her uterus out in a sense onto her belly, opened her uterus just enough to do the surgery, did the microsurgery on the little developing child inside, repaired the problem, sewed up the uterus, replaced it inside the woman, stitched her up, and then she continued with a normal pregnancy.

That is pretty amazing. What a story!

But you see, it is not just a story about technology, is it? It is also a story about little precious unborn human persons. There is also a problem with showing this on T.V. because it gives a much more graphic window into the womb. But there's more in this particular case because, not only was this a remarkable medical feat that obviously and visibly bore testimony to the humanity of the unborn, but in the course of these films being taken, that little baby that was being operated on while it was being filmed, reached up its little hand, and took hold of the finger of the surgeon. That was on film. Don't you wish you could have seen that?

Well, you can't because it won't be aired.

The powers that be on that station told Matt Drudge he could not air that segment. Why not? It is a case that they never show gore on T.V.? It is the case they never show medical procedures on T.V.?

It is because in this particular medical procedure there was a powerful, factual, and emotionally compelling representation of the true and genuine humanity of the unborn, such that anyone watching it would realize that abortion destroys a precious unborn human person.

They wouldn't let him show it. He was so incensed he walked off the set and, having walked off the set and not completing his show, he was in violation of his contract and so they fired him.

That's unbelievable unbelief. You know why? Because those very people could see that very hand reach out of that mom and grab the finger of the surgeon. That little life, that little human person grabbing hold. It should have been obvious to them, as much as it would be obvious to anyone else watching, that there was a human being in there. But they didn't want anybody else to see it. They just wanted it to be shut down so that abortion could go on.

Unbelievable unbelief.

I have the same feeling here about the harvesting of body parts at abortion clinics. There are some people who will read this and say, It doesn't bother me, man. It's okay. We're killing them anyway. What's the big deal? Might as well make some use out of it.

These folks would have fit in well at the killing camps peddling lampshades of human skin and blankets made of human hair.


_______________

Sidenote: I don't know if that surgery was ever eventually broadcast, but that picture with the baby's hand around the surgeon's finger was run in many major magazines that year (2001, I believe) - it's breathtaking.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 09:59 PM   #86
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Well I read the whole thing. I believe every word of it. I'd actually heard about that operation where the fetus grabbed the physican's finger elsewhere. Everything is about money. I mean what else can you expect from a medical sysytem where you don't get operated on if you don't have insurance, not matter how badly you need it. It's the rule of capitalism, if there's a market, product will be delivered.
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 01:42 AM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
Why don't people weigh in on their definition of human? I know nbc didn't want to play the semantics game (neither do I really) but I'm interested to know how people define 'human'.
"Choice" is easier to talk about than "murder".
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:56 AM   #88
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 06:04 AM
Viability is something that article touched on and I was hoping someone would raise before now. It sure seems more like killing a human being at that age doesn't it? It ends the argument at that age that the fetus cannot live without the mother before it is born. I dont think I'd even call it a fetus at that age. Its a little tiny baby that has a chance, if we give it.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 06:30 AM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave


About 30 to 40 babies per week were around 30 weeks old–well past the point of viability.

Is this legal? Federal law makes it illegal to buy and sell human body parts. But there are loopholes in the law. Here's how one body parts company–Opening Lines Inc.–disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: "Turn your patient's decision into something wonderful."

For its buyers, Opening Lines offers "the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it." Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An "intact trunk" fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law's prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to "perform the harvesting," as well as to "offset the clinic's overhead." Opening Lines further boasted, "Our daily average case volume exceeds 1,500 and we serve clinics across the United States."

Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, "a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, 'Got you some good specimens–twins.' I looked at him and said: 'There's something wrong here. They are moving. I can't do this. This is not in my contract.' I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this."

But she did go back and dissect them later. The twins were only the beginning. "It happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, we had live births come back to us. Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead."

American Enterprise asked Kelly if abortion procedures were ever altered to provide specific body parts. "Yes. Before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The (abortionist) would get us the most complete intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating."

The magazine pressed Kelly again. Was the type of abortion ever altered to provide an intact specimen, even if it meant producing a live baby? "Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens."


Didn´t know that was possible in our world.

Thank you for your information, bonosloveslave.

There is no sense in asking for statistics how often this happened with the 1.3 (?) millions of abortions every year. Its the principle that counts, that sth. like that can happen.

So, actually, you want to know my opinion, I guess... I don´t know what to think anymore. I´m still pro-choice, in the sense that the mother has to decide, but look at that case, the doctors decide what happens to living human beings here. Thats not killing, like at a "normal" abortion (again, I have to question my set of standards here), thats murder, most brutal murder.

Hope that the company people and the doctors who make business out of that die a horrible, slow death, and if there is a hell...

How is that possible? Are you informed about the actual situation, BLS? Does that still go on? Could sth. like that happen in Europe? If this still goes on, why don´t politicians enable their police/ judges to persecute those who are responsible for those crimes, instead of playing the morality game and laying the fault on the mothers?

And how can it be that there were 30 weeks old babies? The border is 12 weeks here. And how´s it possible that those doctors are in charge? Does the mother know what happens? Does she "allow" it juridically by signing a paper which allows the fetus to be used for research?

The laws in America must be quite fucked up... but who knows, where else in the world...
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 12:09 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


This, of course, leaves one question unanswered - does an abortion "impose a theology" on the unborn child - a theology that deems the child a "non-life" or that permits the killing of a child.

This was an excellent point. No one answered it so far.

My problem comes that I am a woman and I grow infuriated at the thought of someone telling me what to do with my body. However, I then wonder what gives a person the right to kill an unborn baby? Who will be that baby's voice? And that is why I'm pro-life. It's a human being and b/c it cannot "speak for itself" it is subject to being slaughtered.

Also, how it has been mentioned a person can be charged with manslaughter if they kill an unborn second hand (sorry, i can't remember the scenario I read, I think in the other thread).. the only difference between this person killing the child and the mother killing a child is *want*. Should we base our morality on what we want? I certainly hope not.


Quote:
Originally posted by hippy
I believe that education is the key to reducing the abortion rate. When women can openly discuss these issues, without being attacked for their curiousity and without being dismissed and denied information, then, and only then, will the abortion rate drop.
Good points Hippy. I've always believed we can't outreach to people by judging & condemning them. Who'd want to hear your side of the story if they are already damned in your eye?
__________________

__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com