Abortion Discussion

[AirPo]

You don't kill another human being in the name of your own bodily rights. There are two bodies involved here. You're apparently only interested in one and not the other.

Actually, you do. It's called self defense. Or in some states, "stand your ground." In the case of abortion, it's just not up to you.

 

[PapaZoom]

The difference is that vidoe that's been floating around is a fabrication to make people believe that PP is in a horrible practice. If that is the video that you are talking about, you've been duped.

The video was NOT by CMP, not that it should make any difference.
And how exactly do you get members of Congress to act out a hearing with a PP exec where she admits that babies born alive could be left to die as a matter of practice in cases of botched abortions? That is not an under cover video but available to the public under the FOIA

 

[PapaZoom]

Actually, you do. It's called self defense. Or in some state, "stand your ground." In the case of abortion, it's just not up to you.

Killing an unborn human that is exactly where they are supposed to be is not an act of self defense. It has nothing to do with stand your ground.

 

[AirPo]

The video was NOT by CMP, not that it should make any difference.
And how exactly do you get members of Congress to act out a hearing with a PP exec where she admits that babies born alive could be left to die as a matter of practice in cases of botched abortions? That is not an under cover video but available to the public under the FOIA

Of course it makes a difference. There is a well known video that intentionally distorted the facts about PP.

And even if the alledged testimony before Congress is true, if that ever happens, it's not up to us to decide what happens.

 

[AirPo]

Killing an unborn human that is exactly where they are supposed to be is not an act of self defense. It has nothing to do with stand your ground.

It's exactly the same thing. i.e. "It's me, I get to decide."

 

[PapaZoom]

Of course it makes a difference. There is a well known video that intentionally distorted the facts about PP.

And even if the alledged testimony before Congress is true, if that ever happens, it's not up to us to decide what happens.

It was NOT made by CMP so your argument about the video is a fail. CMP has ZERO to do with it. And you can't fake a Congressional hearing.

So then am I to understand that you're ok with the killing of a baby after it's born if the mother wants it dead?

 

[PapaZoom]

It's exactly the same thing. i.e. "It's me, I get to decide."

Exactly the same thing.
A guy attacks a woman and she has a gun and shoots him is EXACTLY the same thing as her being pregnant?

 

[AirPo]

It was NOT made by CMP so your argument about the video is a fail. CMP has ZERO to do with it. And you can't fake a Congressional hearing.

So then am I to understand that you're ok with the killing of a baby after it's born if the mother wants it dead?

Not enough information. Could you include all of the details so I can definatively say it's not up to you?

 

[AirPo]

Exactly the same thing.
A guy attacks a woman and she has a gun and shoots him is EXACTLY the same thing as her being pregnant?

In both cases a woman is deciding what is she does not want to happen to her. So yes.

 

[Archivist]

Killing an unborn human that is exactly where they are supposed to be is not an act of self defense. It has nothing to do with stand your ground.

So in cases involving rape the fetuis "exactly where [it] is supposed to be" even though the pregnant woman did not consent to the sexual act.

I have asked this before but have yet to receive an answer: Do you favoir involuntay servitude in other cases, or just in cases involving rape victims?

 

[Archivist]

So then am I to understand that you're ok with the killing of a baby after it's born if the mother wants it dead?

Different situation, with the word "born" being the key.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Proof? Did you not hear the words of the Planned Parenthood exec as she stood before a committee of Congress? She was asked what is the position of PP if a baby is born in an abortion attempt but the abortion fails and the baby is fully born. So the baby is on the table, separated from its mother. The mother can no longer claim bodily rights because she's no longer pregnant. The baby is alive. But without care, all babies born will die if left unattended.

When asked what is the position of PP in these situations the PP Exec said that it's up to the mother and her doctor.

So, since you're stating that the exec said it's up to the doctor and the pregnant woman, it's not a fact that PP has a policy to let the product of a failed abortion die.

And to be clear, everything I'm reading suggests that this is an exceedingly rare event.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You don't kill another human being in the name of your own bodily rights. There are two bodies involved here. You're apparently only interested in one and not the other.

Two bodies, one person in my opinion.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

So, your "source" really was just your own opinion....I thought as much....

It always is...

 

[redleghunter]

Meanwhile in the real world:

Dear Friend of Life,

The abortion industry has once again revealed its horrifying, radical agenda. This time, it was at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on late-term abortions earlier this week.

Witness after witness for the abortion lobby left no doubt in anyone’s mind: The abortion industry wants abortion on demand up until birth, and babies who are accidentally born during an abortion can be left to die.

It didn’t matter that physicians at the hearing testified that babies can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation. The abortion lobby’s witnesses were against any ban on late-term abortions, indifferent to the fact that abortion inflicts horrific pain upon children in the womb.

It didn’t matter that physicians also testified about the numbers of babies born at 22 weeks gestation who survive -- and that the survival rate increases dramatically with each passing week of gestation.* These children are routinely killed in abortion facilities across America.

And when asked about babies who are born alive during botched abortions, the abortion lobby’s witnesses insisted that they should ONLY get life-saving medical care IF the mother and the abortionist want to help them.

(in other words, if the baby is born alive in a failed abortion, and no longer attached to the mother so she is officially no longer pregnant, the abortion lobby's position is that the born infant can still be killed as part of the abortion procedure. A baby, completely outside of its mother can still be killed!)


I want to quote the witnesses directly on that, because it's hard to believe.

Jodi Magee, president of the pro-abortion Physicians for Reproductive Health, said, “We should leave it to [the abortionists] to make those decisions, and we should be leaving it to women to make the choices about their own pregnancies.” When the question was asked again whether babies born alive should get medical care no matter what, Dr. Diana Foster, professor at the University of California-San Francisco’s department of obstetrics, said, “I do disagree.”

That’s right, the abortion industry admitted to Congress that it’s willing to let those sweet little babies born alive struggle for their last breaths on the table or in the trash can until they die.

After decades of telling us that abortion is all about a woman’s right to control her own body, the abortion industry just revealed that even AFTER a child is outside her mother’s body and the “Her body, her choice” excuse no longer exists, they’re still willing to kill that child.

And that ladies and gentleman should put to rest the lie that this is about bodily rights of the pregnant woman. It's about killing an unborn human being.

Pro murder is clear. How sickening.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I never listen to Rush. I simply picked him to illustrate the point that using him as a reference is on the same level as using Media Matters.

Proof? Did you not hear the words of the Planned Parenthood exec as she stood before a committee of Congress? She was asked what is the position of PP if a baby is born in an abortion attempt but the abortion fails and the baby is fully born. So the baby is on the table, separated from its mother. The mother can no longer claim bodily rights because she's no longer pregnant. The baby is alive. But without care, all babies born will die if left unattended.

When asked what is the position of PP in these situations the PP Exec said that it's up to the mother and her doctor.

What? She's no longer pregnant. The baby is alive and fully born. And PP's position is the simply let the doctor and the mother decide if the baby should now live or die. If it's to live, they attend to it like they would in all births. If it's to die, they just leave it to die. Unattended. These facts were presented in the video and came from the mouth of the PP exec! Yet you want proof. This is how I see pro abortionists work all the time. The evidence is right before their eyes and they ignore what they see and ask an unrelated question.

You didn't really expect that he would watch it did you? The callousness of that PP exec was apalling. She would have made an excellent SS Guard.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Not enough information. Could you include all of the details so I can definatively say it's not up to you?

There we go, throw out that red herring.......

 

[AirPo]

There we go, throw out that red herring.......

Asking for clarification is not a red herring.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You didn't really expect that he would watch it did you? The callousness of that PP exec was apalling. She would have made an excellent SS Guard.

Oh, I watched it all right. I also looked into the facts that the video tries to misrepresent.

 

[BiblicalAstronomy]

Gen. 2:7 tells us that Adam did not become a "living soul" until he took he first breath. Certainly, the fetus contains all the Potential for life, but it is not breathing on its own yet in the womb...

Adam is the Prototypical pattern for all human life, and the human bodies of our entire race are based on him and contain the same raw materials [dust to dust]. It is also thru his blood that sin was communicated to all mankind, [Acts 17:25] and as Romans 5:14 tells us below; The second Adam [Jesus Christ] is of the same figure or "type"-[tupos] as the first Adam, so any attempt to separate us from Adam is unwise unless you want to question the perfection of the body of Christ in the same breath.

Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure [tupos] of him that was to come. [Christ]

The Big difference between the First and Second Adams is their blood, Adam's was sinful-Christ's was perfect. The realization of how it is perfect however provides great insight into our redemption. Since Christ was the product of the perfect sperm God created in Mary, his Blood was not stained with Adam's sin, which is a main reason why Christ can qualify as the perfect sacrifice for the sin of Mankind. No other human was ever conceived in this manner, which puts Christ in a class by himself, matching Adam's stature prior to his fall in Eden. We find more of this in Hebrews 2;

14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [Jesus] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews tells us all other members of humanity are partakers of flesh and blood, but Jesus only took part of the same! He was a man of the flesh, "made like unto his brethren" but not of Adam's Blood! Evidence from the medical profession supports this because it shows that the blood comes from the male side which was carried in the perfect sperm God created in Mary. If this was not the case then Jesus died for nothing and all mankind remains un-redeemed! But we serve a Perfect Heavenly Father and we can see the perfect wisdom in His plan of redemption for Mankind, embodied in His only begotten Son Jesus Christ!

Since Adam did not become a "living soul" until he took he first breath, and he is the pattern for the physical life of all humanity, then it sets the standard for when life as a "living soul" begins. When God was forming Adam out of the ground he displayed all the "potential for life' that any fetus does, but he was not yet an autonomous life form because he was not breathing under his own power. So it is with the fetus who parasitically breathes off the host mother in the womb, until the newborn takes its first breath at birth.

Why else does the same verse [Gen. 2:7] I'm referencing contain the words "breath of Life"? Because God as the Source of all LIFE, is the One Who breathed it into Adam, which is also acknowledged in [Job 33:4].
This is a perfect link to [Levi 17:11] where the life of the flesh is in the Blood, because the blood carries the oxygen of the breath of life to all the cells of the human body. Anyone familiar with grade school biology knows this, and its just another piece of the puzzle that fits into God's ultimate plan of Redemption. This is not "my version" of the case but a clear depiction of the Scriptural record, with a view of the bigger medical picture included. Don't mess with God's Plan...