Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 72
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Let me clarify what I meant, though. What is the difference between killing/aborting/terminating/whatever the life of a twenty-three week old being that is inside the mother's body and a twenty-three week old being that is outside the mother's body (perfectly healthy or not)? I suppose what I'm asking is, when is it abortion, when is it infanticide, and if one is better than the other, why?
    In 1983, PBS' Frontline won an Emmy for a film titled "Abortion Clinic"

    I have linked to the film below. In it, Barbara's abortion does not go so well. "You are losing something. It's normal to cry," said the abortion worker in street clothes in the procedure room. "Barbara hurts a lot physically and emotionally," according to Frontline....and this is a simple DNC procedure. BTW: Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a very "mentally healthy, self-esteem affirming" thing for women to do.

    WARNING: THIS VIDEO COULD BE VERY DISTURBING TO SOME.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...rtion6_hi.html




    "Mary", a blogger on a different site commented on this video:

    "...As a medical professional other aspects of this video jumped out at me. Did the abortionist wash his hands before or after the procedure? I saw no sink in the room....

    The abortionist doesn't meet or speak with the patient prior to the procedure? A patient is just set up on the table and a doctor she's never met and who knows nothing about her comes in and performs a surgical procedure on her. Under what other circumstances, other than an emergency, would this be considered acceptable medical practice? No vital signs are taken, and no IV set up for an emergency is visible. Who are the female clinic employees? What are their credentials? Why are they in street clothes? Where else is it acceptable for employees involved in surgical procedures to wear street clothes? Are these women properly trained to assist in an emergency situation? Is there any nursing personnel?"


    So what can one assume from the details of the news story in the OP in light of this video and the questions posed by a medical professional blogging above?

    In Fla., the procedure was begun before a doctor is even in the building. A non-medical "owner" of the clinic responds to an "emergency".

    No call to 911? How often do things like what happened in Fla. happen?

    How bad emotionally or physically does it need to be for the woman before anyone ever hears about it in the media?

    Are we so blind to abortion practices, and so influenced by the abortion-clinic PR machines, so unquestionably accepting of Planned Parenthood talking points and jargon that it takes a case like the one in FLA for people to begin to ask questions like: "What is good about the unrestricted killing of developing humans?"




    As a bit of a sidebar...

    I found this statement by Planned Parenthood to be so indicative of the self-centered motivation driving abortion, I just had to include it here:

    "Of pregnant women who considered other options before choosing abortion, none considered having a baby and giving it up for adoption. Nearly all of the women believed that relinquishing a baby would cause even greater emotional trauma than abortion. They believed they would develop a deep emotional attachment to the baby that would be extremely painful to sever."

    So they decide to kill it?

    So selfish a motivation they don't even realize it. What does it say about a society that developing humans are killed because their mothers are afraid they will develop a "deep emotional attachment to the baby" and can't bare to know their child will be living with other people who will love and care for the child --- A society where infertile couples literally go to the other side of the world to try to adopt, or undergo extraordinary measures like Invitro fertilization ... And all the while developing humans are being killed en masse, because potential birth mothers are afraid they will love the baby too much, and would rather it be killed?

    Planned Parenthood offers no information on adoption, other than to negate it as "painful" for the birth mother and as a far inferior "choice" when compared to killing the developing human.

    Also according to Planned Parenthood: 70% of women seeking abortion for the first time used no contraception. Would those women maybe actually use contraception or abstain if abortions were not available on demand?

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...rtion-6137.htm
    Last edited by Spartacus; February 8th, 2009 at 03:18 AM.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    In 1983, PBS' Frontline won an Emmy for a film titled "Abortion Clinic"

    I have linked to the film below. In it, Barbara's abortion does not go so well. "You are losing something. It's normal to cry," said the abortion worker in street clothes in the procedure room. "Barbara hurts a lot physically and emotionally," according to Frontline....and this is a simple DNC procedure. BTW: Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a very "mentally healthy, self-esteem affirming" thing for women to do.
    That was some interesting info, but unfortunately didn't answer my question.

  3. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    That was some interesting info, but unfortunately didn't answer my question.
    Well:

    From my perspective, the pro-abortion position is that because developing humans are in the uterus, not fully developed (however one defines that), are small, need a special environment, and depend on others to survive and grow -- It is OK to kill the developing human at any time so long as the infant is inside the mother at least a tiny bit. For some reason the pro-abortion side makes an arbitrary and capricious distinction as to what qualifies as a human life that has value enough not to be killed.

    Other than that, I have no idea why anyone believing abortions should not be restricted, would have any logical reason to object to what was described in the OP.
    Last edited by Spartacus; February 8th, 2009 at 06:38 PM.

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    In the OP and elsewhere the human that was killed is called a baby. Now when you wish to defend the practice that kills 1.2 million such humans a year in the U.S. you use the term "fetus"....
    Being born alive makes you a baby. Fetus is the correct term for what they were talking about. The word fetus is used because it is specific. It also does dehumanize, if you are defining humanize as people thinking of fetuses vs. babies in the context of abortions, as well it should. Fetuses aren't the same thing as babies and people shouldn't be led to believe that.

    I agree, it is overused, they are called embryos for the first 8 weeks or so. I probably accidentally call them fetuses sometimes too. What does that have to do with anything? They definitely aren't babies at either step. If anything calling them fetuses over embryos humanizes them more.

    "To be correct scientifically when discussing this issue "Developing Human" is the best term. It best and most accurately describes the target of the abortionist's killing."

    I couldn't even find a definition for the phrase "developing human", so how would that best accurately describe anything? If you look up the terms embryo and fetus you can read all about them and their different characteristics at those stages. Why would substituting them with a vague and pointless term when you could use words that scientifically describe what you're talking about?

    "Abortionists don't target "canine, feline" and other species fetus after all right?"

    What? That makes no sense at all. Are you asking why people don't use the term "human fetus" when talking about abortion? It's probably because, from the context of the conversation, it's obvious and redundant.

    "Dehumanizing a target is a necessary step in order to get a society to accept the killing of humans on a mass scale. EG: During slavery people could kill "N!GGERS". In WWII U.S. soldiers and marines killed "Japs" and "Krauts". In Korea "Gooks and Commies.""

    You're comparing the word fetus, which is a scientific term for a specific stage of development, to racial slurs. Can you please raise the level of your arguements? You seem to be able to form coherent thoughts sometimes, but then you pepper your responses with slanderous and illogical and frankly stupid ideas such as this, which I don't think any rationally thinking person would agree with. If you get too angry when replying to people, take a break for awhile. Then think before you post comments like these. It's a waste of the time whoever you are asking to address it when you must know well enough that I or someone else would easily tear it apart because it is so obviously false. Why don't you stop making obnoxious and petty statements that don't relate to anything at all? For the sake of not wasting everyone's time and distracting from the real issue?

  5. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Let me clarify what I meant, though. What is the difference between killing/aborting/terminating/whatever the life of a twenty-three week old being that is inside the mother's body and a twenty-three week old being that is outside the mother's body (perfectly healthy or not)? I suppose what I'm asking is, when is it abortion, when is it infanticide, and if one is better than the other, why?
    Neither one is "better". It isn't a contest. Each case is different. Each case needs to carefully weigh the facts of the situation. Lifers love to ask "Well where do you draw the line? At the moment of conception? If it's viable? If it's born? After it's born? Where?"

    It is abortion when it is killed before it is born. You know this. Go look up the definition if you don't understand.

    If what you're asking is when to draw the line after birth, than the term you need is infant euthanasia. I am not going to draw a line between infanticide and infant euthanasia for every single case, when I would not be able to consider the details that apply to every unique situation. Hence why I don't. I believe only the mother and her doctors can decide what is the best choice in each situation. Obviously if the baby is healthy than no one is going to advocate killing it. If a newborn baby has severe health problems, and the mother and doctors decide that the most humane thing to do in that case is to euthanize it, I'm sure they have put much thought into it. Sad situations thankfully don't happen that often but without ever having experienced the kind of pain a parent who goes through it must have, I don't think I can pass moral judgment on those who would choose to do it. Obviously they should NOT be killing babies just because they get the wrong sex, or get annoyed with it, and no doctors would agree to that, and if they did, they should lose their licenses and face criminal charges. But if a person is suffering and isn't able to choose themselves whether they live or die, I believe the parent (or spouse, whichever legally applies) and medical ethics experts are better fit to make that decision than me or you or anyone else who is not directly involved.
    Last edited by Megan; February 8th, 2009 at 07:43 PM.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan View Post
    Being born alive makes you a baby. Fetus is the correct term for what they were talking about. The word fetus is used because it is specific. It also does dehumanize, if you are defining humanize as people thinking of fetuses vs. babies in the context of abortions, as well it should. Fetuses aren't the same thing as babies and people shouldn't be led to believe that.

    I agree, it is overused, they are called embryos for the first 8 weeks or so. I probably accidentally call them fetuses sometimes too. What does that have to do with anything? They definitely aren't babies at either step. If anything calling them fetuses over embryos humanizes them more.

    A fetus (or foetus or fœtus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth.

    While discussing abortion, I never use the word "baby" or person to describe a developing human in the uterus... except when quoting someone else. I stick to scientifically accurate terms.

    ALSO -- the word "fetus" describes a developmental stage. However I disagree that it "humanizes" anything, and challenge you to show that it does.

    When one insists on using jargon that is used and propagated by a group with a particular agenda, one identifies oneself as belonging to that group, and/or being indoctrinated rather than educated.

    Always better to stick to accurate terms. So, I am OK with the word "fetus" being used -- so long as it preceded by the word "Human" as in Human Fetus. the word "Fetus" used alone can refer to dogs, cats etc. However, after birth, humans are babies, dogs are pups, and cats are kittens. Therefore when you use only the word "fetus" it is dehumanizing.

    You do a disservice to your argument by choosing to use inaccurate terms.

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan View Post

    If what you're asking is when to draw the line after birth, than the term you need is infant euthanasia. I am not going to draw a line between infanticide and infant euthanasia for every single case, when I would not be able to consider the details that apply to every unique situation. Hence why I don't. I believe only the mother and her doctors can decide what is the best choice in each situation. Obviously if the baby is healthy than no one is going to advocate killing it. If a newborn baby has severe health problems, and the mother and doctors decide that the most humane thing to do in that case is to euthanize it, I'm sure they have put much thought into it. Sad situations thankfully don't happen that often but without ever having experienced the kind of pain a parent who goes through it must have, I don't think I can pass moral judgment on those who would choose to do it. Obviously they should NOT be killing babies just because they get the wrong sex, or get annoyed with it, and no doctors would agree to that, and if they did, they should lose their licenses and face criminal charges. But if a person is suffering and isn't able to choose themselves whether they live or die, I believe the parent (or spouse, whichever legally applies) and medical ethics experts are better fit to make that decision than me or you or anyone else who is not directly involved.
    SO what you are arguing is a case for situational ethics and rationalization combined with an appeal to authority. That is essentially no position and no better than stating "it's based on how I feel."

    This is no basis on which to make or enforce law.

  8. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Spartacus exposed; "psychological effects of abortion" debunked

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    But did it spell things out like:

    "Psychological Effects of Abortion

    Women who have undergone induced abortion are more likely to experience mental health problems. These problems can range from mild depression to severe anxiety disorders. In a 2006 study conducted in New Zealand it was found that “in all comparisons, those becoming pregnant and seeking abortions had significantly higher rates of disorder than the not pregnant group and, with the exception of anxiety disorder, significantly higher rates of disorder than the pregnant no abortion group.”1 Researchers concluded that “exposure to abortion is a traumatic life event which increases longer-term susceptibility to common mental disorders.” 2

    When compared to women who have given birth, women who have had an abortion also have significantly higher rates of admission to hospital for psychiatric reasons.3 In a 2003 study sponsored by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons it was found that women who had an induced abortion had a five times higher rate of admission to hospital for psychiatric reasons in the following three months than women who had not undergone induced abortion.4

    Women with a past history of abuse or mental problems as well as women with a lack of support, conflicting belief systems or those in their teen years are at an even higher risk for developing psychological problems following an abortion. Researchers have also found that women who are pressured or coerced into having an abortion are also “likely to experience more distress around the decision, as well as guilt, anxiety and depression.”5
    Common psychological health problems linked to induced abortion

    * Anxiety
    * Depression
    * Drug Abuse
    * Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
    * Sexual Dysfunction
    * Sleep Problems
    * Suicidal Ideation

    1 Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. “Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2006; 47(1): 21.

    2 Fergusson. et al. p. 22.

    3 Reardon DC, Jesse Cougle, Rue V, Shuping M, Coleman P, Ney P. “Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 2003; 168(10): 1255.

    4 Ostbye T, Wenghofer E, Woodward C, Gold G, Craighead J. “Health Services Utilization After Induced Abortions in Ontario: A Comparison Between Community Clinics and Hospitals.” American Journal of Medical Quality 2001; 16(3): 103.

    5 Ring-Cassidy. et al. p. 131."
    http://www.abortionincanada.ca/healt...cts.html#_edn2
    Wow, way to copy and paste your ENTIRE post from one website, including their sources, which I doubt you bothered to read. If you did you would find that the text you copied and pasted from abortionincanada.ca was rife with quote-mining.

    I looked up each study “you” cited, and read the abstracts for all three of them. Next time try actually looking at the sources yourself instead of copying and pasting quotes taken from them by someone else, and maybe you won’t end up looking so foolish again. It’s a shame people here give you props for this post when a) it is not even your ideas and b) it is full of quotes taken out of context.

    1) From the abstract of the first study “you” cited, but did not bother to read the results of:


    BACKGROUND: The extent to which abortion has harmful consequences for mental health remains controversial. We aimed to examine the linkages between having an abortion and mental health outcomes over the interval from age 15-25 years.
    CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636

    So overall, this study says that the extent of psychological consequences of abortion REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL. All the study found is that abortion in young women MAY be ASSOCIATED with increased risk of mental health problems, they did not find that abortion causes them. FAIL.

    2) From the abstract of the second study “you” cited:


    Background: Controversy exists about whether abortion or childbirth is associated with greater psychological risks. We compared psychiatric admission rates of women in time periods from 90 days to 4 years after either abortion or childbirth.
    Results: Overall, women who had had an abortion had a significantly higher relative risk of psychiatric admission compared with women who had delivered for every time period examined. Significant differences by major diagnostic categories were found for adjustment reactions (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–4.1), single-episode (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3–2.9) and recurrent depressive psychosis (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3–3.5), and bipolar disorder (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.5–6.0). Significant differences were also observed when the results were stratified by age.
    Interpretation: Subsequent psychiatric admissions are more common among low-income women who have an induced abortion than among those who carry a pregnancy to term, both in the short and longer term.


    This source says that CONTROVERSY EXISTS about the psychological risks of abortion, and the link they did find was in only in low income women, and all that they found was that psychiatric admissions were higher after abortions, not that abortions causes psychological damage. If researchers really concluded that “exposure to abortion is a traumatic life event which increases longer-term susceptibility to common mental disorders," then why wasn't that stated in THE CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY? FAIL.

    3) And from the abstract of the third study “you” cited:


    The purpose of this study was to compare post-abortion health services utilization of hospital abortion patients with community clinic abortion patients using administrative databases.
    Within the abortion patient population, hospital day-surgery patients had higher rates of postabortion utilization and hospitalization than did community clinic patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that hospital day surgery patients had a higher risk of subsequent post-abortion hospitalizations for infections, surgical, and psychiatric problems than community clinic patients. The rates of post-abortion health services utilization and risk of hospitalization were lower in community clinic abortion patients than in hospital day-surgery patients. However, it is not possible to fully control for important confounding variables when using these administrative data.


    So this study was not even TRYING to prove psychological damages caused by abortion, all they did was compare hospital day-surgery patients to community clinic patients.


    And yes I know you posted the link down at the bottom, but it didn't even work. I had to google the first line of type to find the page you took that information from. You did use quotes, but obviously it wasn't clear to others that the words weren’t yours. You stuck the link right under one of your other sources, and it looked like it was part of it. Look at the compliments you got for writing an educated, intelligent and convincing post, and for your through research. I haven't seen you write to any of those people and correct them, yet you have had time to reply to plenty of other people since then.

    You should be ashamed.

    The “research” you got credit for wasn't even good.

    THOSE STUDIES DID NOT FIND THAT ABORTION CAUSES PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE. THAT PAGE QUOTE-MINED TO IMPLY THAT THEY DID. YOU COPIED AND PASTED BLINDLY.

    EPIC FAIL!
    Last edited by Megan; February 8th, 2009 at 10:27 PM. Reason: adding longer quote

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan;Spartacus
    "...When one insists on using jargon that is used and propagated by a group with a particular agenda, one identifies oneself as belonging to that group, and/or being indoctrinated rather than educated."
    Using the word fetus during a discussion about abortion in no way identifies me as belonging to a certain group or being indoctrinated rather than educated. You seem to like to make up these rules and conditions for the world that don't exist.

    "You do a disservice to your argument by choosing to use inaccurate terms."

    If we were comparing human fetuses with fetuses of other species then I would identify it. Everyone knows that in the context of the pro-choice/pro-life debate we are talking about humans so there is no need to elaborate on the word fetus. It is redundant and pointless. You can repeat something as much as you want, that doesn't make it true. Also, "inaccurate" is not the right word for what you are talking about. What you describe is "unspecific." They are not interchangeable.
    Last edited by Megan; February 8th, 2009 at 10:18 PM.

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    SO what you are arguing is a case for situational ethics and rationalization combined with an appeal to authority. That is essentially no position and no better than stating "it's based on how I feel."

    This is no basis on which to make or enforce law.
    What I said: "I believe the parent (or spouse, whichever legally applies) and medical ethics experts are better fit to make that decision than me or you or anyone else who is not directly involved."

    Appeal to Authority: "The opinion of someone famous or accomplished in an another area of expertise supposedly guarantees the truth of a conclusion."
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40

    AN APPEAL TO MEDICAL ETHICS EXPERTS ON A MEDICAL ETHICS ISSUE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY

    Nice try, thanks for playing.

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Spartacus exposed; "psychological effects of abortion" debunked

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan View Post
    Wow, way to copy and paste your ENTIRE post from one website, including their sources, which I doubt you bothered to read. If you did you would find that the text you copied and pasted from abortionincanada.ca was rife with quote-mining.

    I looked up each study “you” cited, and read the abstracts for all three of them. Next time try actually looking at the sources yourself instead of copying and pasting quotes taken from them by someone else, and maybe you won’t end up looking so foolish again. It’s a shame people here give you props for this post when a) it is not even your ideas and b) it is full of quotes taken out of context.
    NEXT TIME -- before you accuse anyone of anything please brush up on your grammar and rules for ODN here.

    Marks like these " " Mean I did not write what lies between the marks or am using someone else's words there. Not mine.

    A link was listed below the quoted citations...

    Anyone going to the site would see it is essentially a Canadian secular pro-life site. I hid nothing. I never intended to argue for emotional/psychological effects of abortion. I never brought up the emotional/psychological aspect. One or more of the people who neg-repped me did.

    Hell my position here has always been: She went to kill her offspring. Her offspring was killed. What grounds does she have for a suit? I challenge you to show where I have ever stated anything differently in regards to the case, the woman's grounds, etc.


    My purpose in providing the "QUOTEs" was in the context of any possible waivers the woman or her parents might have signed. Mark my words: Study this case and you will see some of the themes you "cried foul" about (oooops there are those pesky marks again ) come up in court papers.

    "Don't piss on my back and say it's raining"' See....there are those goofy little marks again.
    Last edited by Spartacus; February 8th, 2009 at 11:13 PM.

  12. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan View Post
    What I said: "I believe the parent (or spouse, whichever legally applies) and medical ethics experts are better fit to make that decision than me or you or anyone else who is not directly involved."

    Appeal to Authority: "The opinion of someone famous or accomplished in an another area of expertise supposedly guarantees the truth of a conclusion."
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40

    AN APPEAL TO MEDICAL ETHICS EXPERTS ON A MEDICAL ETHICS ISSUE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY
    Uhhh sorry, but "Medical Ethics Experts" come in all shapes, sizes and flavors on this one. You are using the appeal to authority fallacy e.g some people know better than me.

    To paraphrase: Your stated position is: You have no position. You don't want to deal with this issue. You appeal to "higher authority" in the form of "Medical Ethics Experts".

    It's just a cop out.

    Many women in the U.S. have had and/or know other women who have had abortions. Men have had losses from abortion too, yet have no "choice" outside AFTER his penis penetrates a woman. Who has not been affected by abortion in this country? I had a neice or nephew killed by abortion. Had I been conceived after Roe v. Wade, I myself probably would have been aborted because my mother was just barely 17 when she gave birth to me. I have more than one neice who were given up for adoption. They are doing great!

    There is a tendency to "not want to judge" people who have chosen to kill their unborn offspring. That's normal.

    However when we try to deal with tough issues we need to set emotions aside, and make intelligent, compasionate decisions that moves us forward not back. We also need to have clear and logical lines of demarcation and I think that is why this case -- and what I cited (studies based on emotional psychological effects of abortion) -- has struck a nerve with you and others.

    You no longer know where your lines are at. Maybe you never thought of them before? You would rather just not think about it and leave it to others to make....at least that is what I have gotten from your posts.

    My position is very simple and logical:


    1.)
    All humans, regardless of color, sex, size, level of development, location and dependency on others -- at the absolute minimum has the right to not be killed without just cause.

    2.) So long as induced abortion -- the intentional killing of developing humans - remans legal on demand at any stage for any reason or even no reason -- then a woman, has no standing in any suit related to her offspring being killed, so long as the woman is healthy after the procedure.

    In the case you cited, the abortionist was not in the building. yep. That's pretty bad. But go back and watch the PBS Frontline video in their Emmy winning "Abortion Clinic" and it's no surprise.

    It is perfectly acceptable for society to limit a person's choices, we do it all the time, and even use our courts to do it. I can't leave a junk car in my yard. I can't combine over the counter drugs and chemcials and cook up a batch Meth for myself either because my community has decided it does not coincide with their value system and goals. Every society places limits on personal freedoms. Especially when those freedoms infringing on other's rights...like getting killed before you're even born.

    The same is true with abortion in the is country. We have the power as a society to put reasonable restrictions on the killing of the unborn. How many more cases like this need to happen before people wake to the fact that we have th epower, ideed th eduty, to enact some reasonable restrictions on the intentional killing of unborn humans.

  13. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Spartacus exposed; "psychological effects of abortion" debunked

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    NEXT TIME -- before you accuse anyone of anything please brush up on your grammar and rules for ODN here.

    Marks like these " "

    Mean I did not write what lies between the marks or am using someone else's words there. Not mine.

    A link was listed below the quoted citations...

    Anyone going to the site would see it is essentially a Canadian secular pro-life site. I hid nothing. I never intended to argue for emotional/psychological effects of abortion. I never brought up the emotional/psychological aspect. One or more of the people who neg-repped me did.
    No, I don't need to brush up on grammar. You need to study how to make it clear to people reading your posts that your entire post is someone elses' work. I realize you put quotes around it but what you should have done was to properly introduce the quote and make it clear that it wasn't your work. Obviously it wasn't clear or else people wouldn't have been giving you credit for it.

    The link didn't even work. I doubt most people who read your post would take the time to search for the article.

    The thesis of the article you posted was, "Women who have undergone induced abortion are more likely to experience mental health problems." Where do you get off saying that you "never intended to argue for emotional/psychological effects of abortion"?

    "My purpose in providing the "QUOTEs" was in the context of any possible waivers the woman or her parents might have signed. Mark my words: Study this case and you will see some of the themes you "cried foul" about (oooops there are those pesky marks again ) come up in court papers.""

    I'm sure I will. I'm sure her lawyers are prepping her thoroughly.

  14. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    And along a different vein:

    Also in Flrodia just last year:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253538,00.html


    "MIAMI — Parents of one of the world's smallest premature babies got to take her home Wednesday for the first time since she was delivered last fall.

    Amillia Sonja Taylor has known only an incubator for a bed at Baptist Children's Hospital since she was delivered in October after less than 22 weeks in the womb.

    "The baby is healthy and thriving and left Baptist Children's Hospital today after four months in our neonatal intensive care unit," hospital spokeswoman Liz Latta said."


    So last year a baby borna t 22 weeks survived and is doing well now.


    So the woman wanting to kill her offspring, and went for an induced abortion wanted to kill an almost fully developed baby. Her child breathed after it was born before being thrown into a garbage bag.

    Had the staff called 911 rather than worry about covering their butts, might the child have lived?

    How can anyone work at an abortion clinic and have to deal with the very real evidence of killing humans all the time?
    Just look at the photo in the story I linked -- It's a live 22-wk old baby. Not 23 wk like the one in the story.

    Are abortionists so de-sensitized that some have trouble distinguishing between abortion and infanticide?

  15. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    It will be interesting to see the waiver and release form the young woman and/or her parents signed. I'd be willing to bet it covered all contingenicies.

    But did it spell things out like:

    "Psychological Effects of Abortion

    Women who have undergone induced abortion are more likely ..."
    Geee.....

    Sure seems like it was clearly introduced.

    In the future for your beneift I may try to use different colors of our crayon box here so you can better distinguish. Then again I may not.

    NOTE: DISTINCT LACK OF BIG LETTERS SPELLING OUT STUPID "Put Downs"

  16. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Uhhh sorry, but "Medical Ethics Experts" come in all shapes, sizes and flavors on this one. You are using the appeal to authority fallacy e.g some people know better than me.
    I should have been more specific. Just because I didn't clarify exactly which medical ethics experts does not make it an appeal to unqualified authority.

    Since you're so interested, the medical ethics expert I was referring to were of the sort who specialize in the study of bioethics and euthanasia.

    "To paraphrase: Your stated position is: You have no position. You don't want to deal with this issue. You appeal to "higher authority" in the form of "Medical Ethics Experts"."

    No, refraining from passing judgment isn't a cop-out, it's an acknowledgment of the complexity of the issue.

    "Many women in the U.S. have had and/or know other women who have had abortions. Men have had losses from abortion too, yet have no "choice" outside AFTER his penis penetrates a woman. Who has not been affected by abortion in this country? I had a neice or nephew killed by abortion. Had I been conceived after Roe v. Wade, I myself probably would have been aborted because my mother was just barely 17 when she gave birth to me. I have more than one neice who were given up for adoption. They are doing great!"

    What is your point? This is not relevant to anything.

    "There is a tendency to "not want to judge" people who have chosen to kill their unborn offspring. That's normal."

    There is? What evidence do you have for that? How do you explain all the pro-lifers, then? Their use of logic and reason to overcome their tendency not to judge? hahahaha

    "However when we try to deal with tough issues we need to set emotions aside, and make intelligent, compasionate decisions that moves us forward not back. We also need to have clear and logical lines of demarcation and I think that is why this case -- and what I cited (studies based on emotional psychological effects of abortion) -- has struck a nerve with you and others."

    No. The research you cited was flawed, and I proved it to you. Sorry you can't accept that. I don't tolerate the spread of misinformation.

    "You no longer know where your lines are at. Maybe you never thought of them before? You would rather just not think about it and leave it to others to make....at least that is what I have gotten from your posts."

    What? You continue to twist my stance and put words in my mouth.

    Obviously if I would rather not think about issues like these I wouldn't be involved in a debate about abortion. You said I would rather "leave it to others to make." Since you didn't define your pronoun (someone needs to brush up on his grammar!), I don't really know what you mean by "it". If by "it", you are referring to the decision of a person whether or not to have an abortion, and by "others" you mean the woman, then yes, yes I would. If by "it", you are referring to the decision of parents whether or not to euthanize a suffering and/or severely disabled baby, and by "others" you mean the parents AND a board of medical ethics experts who are knowledgeable in the studies of bioethics and euthanasia, then yes, yes I would.

    "
    My position is very simple and logical:


    1.)
    All humans, regardless of color, sex, size, level of development, location and dependency on others -- at the absolute minimum has the right to not be killed without just cause."

    Your opinion is simple because it is based on ideologies, not evidence. That's nothing to be proud of.

    "It is perfectly acceptable for society to limit a person's choices, we do it all the time, and even use our courts to do it. I can't leave a junk car in my yard. I can't combine over the counter drugs and chemcials and cook up a batch Meth for myself either because my community has decided it does not coincide with their value system and goals. Every society places limits on personal freedoms. Especially when those freedoms infringing on other's rights...like getting killed before you're even born."

    I didn't make the claim that it isn't acceptable for society to limit a person's choices, so all those worthless examples mean nothing. And nice try, but a fetus does not have personal freedoms because it is not a person.

    "The same is true with abortion in the is country. We have the power as a society to put reasonable restrictions on the killing of the unborn. How many more cases like this need to happen before people wake to the fact that we have th epower, ideed th eduty, to enact some reasonable restrictions on the intentional killing of unborn humans."

    Yawn. I am so tired of your illogical soap boxes. This proves nothing.

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Geee.....

    Sure seems like it was clearly introduced.
    Oh okay, I guess the two people who complimented you just missed your completely clear introduction. It must be their fault your post was misunderstood.

  18. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan View Post

    Yawn. I am so tired of your illogical soap boxes. This proves nothing.

    Except that you obviously do not how to use them or attribute the work of others appropriately.

    Seriously... Thanks again for proving my point.

  19. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    As demonstrated by this:


    Quote Originally Posted by Megan View Post
    I should have been more specific. Just because I didn't clarify exactly which medical ethics experts does not make it an appeal to unqualified authority.

    Since you're so interested, the medical ethics expert I was referring to were of the sort who specialize in the study of bioethics and euthanasia.

    "To paraphrase: Your stated position is: You have no position. You don't want to deal with this issue. You appeal to "higher authority" in the form of "Medical Ethics Experts"."

    No, refraining from passing judgment isn't a cop-out, it's an acknowledgment of the complexity of the issue.

    "Many women in the U.S. have had and/or know other women who have had abortions. Men have had losses from abortion too, yet have no "choice" outside AFTER his penis penetrates a woman. Who has not been affected by abortion in this country? I had a neice or nephew killed by abortion. Had I been conceived after Roe v. Wade, I myself probably would have been aborted because my mother was just barely 17 when she gave birth to me. I have more than one neice who were given up for adoption. They are doing great!"

    What is your point? This is not relevant to anything.

    "There is a tendency to "not want to judge" people who have chosen to kill their unborn offspring. That's normal."

    There is? What evidence do you have for that? How do you explain all the pro-lifers, then? Their use of logic and reason to overcome their tendency not to judge? hahahaha

    "However when we try to deal with tough issues we need to set emotions aside, and make intelligent, compasionate decisions that moves us forward not back. We also need to have clear and logical lines of demarcation and I think that is why this case -- and what I cited (studies based on emotional psychological effects of abortion) -- has struck a nerve with you and others."

    No. The research you cited was flawed, and I proved it to you. Sorry you can't accept that. I don't tolerate the spread of misinformation.

    "You no longer know where your lines are at. Maybe you never thought of them before? You would rather just not think about it and leave it to others to make....at least that is what I have gotten from your posts."

    What? You continue to twist my stance and put words in my mouth.

    Obviously if I would rather not think about issues like these I wouldn't be involved in a debate about abortion. You said I would rather "leave it to others to make." Since you didn't define your pronoun (someone needs to brush up on his grammar!), I don't really know what you mean by "it". If by "it", you are referring to the decision of a person whether or not to have an abortion, and by "others" you mean the woman, then yes, yes I would. If by "it", you are referring to the decision of parents whether or not to euthanize a suffering and/or severely disabled baby, and by "others" you mean the parents AND a board of medical ethics experts who are knowledgeable in the studies of bioethics and euthanasia, then yes, yes I would.

    "
    My position is very simple and logical:


    1.)
    All humans, regardless of color, sex, size, level of development, location and dependency on others -- at the absolute minimum has the right to not be killed without just cause."

    Your opinion is simple because it is based on ideologies, not evidence. That's nothing to be proud of.

    "It is perfectly acceptable for society to limit a person's choices, we do it all the time, and even use our courts to do it. I can't leave a junk car in my yard. I can't combine over the counter drugs and chemcials and cook up a batch Meth for myself either because my community has decided it does not coincide with their value system and goals. Every society places limits on personal freedoms. Especially when those freedoms infringing on other's rights...like getting killed before you're even born."

    I didn't make the claim that it isn't acceptable for society to limit a person's choices, so all those worthless examples mean nothing. And nice try, but a fetus does not have personal freedoms because it is not a person.

    "The same is true with abortion in the is country. We have the power as a society to put reasonable restrictions on the killing of the unborn. How many more cases like this need to happen before people wake to the fact that we have th epower, ideed th eduty, to enact some reasonable restrictions on the intentional killing of unborn humans."

    Yawn. I am so tired of your illogical soap boxes. This proves nothing.

  20. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive and then Killed

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post

    Except that you obviously do not how to use them or attribute the work of others appropriately.

    Seriously... Thanks again for proving my point.
    What? I don't understand what you are talking about, could you please be a little more specific than merely quoting an entire post without even commenting on the content? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •