View Full Version : You tube clip: Suction abortion explained
Regardless on your position on abortion, we should all be informed about what it actually is.
This why a baby doctor like Ron Paul is so pro-life. It's a pro-liberty issue...the liberty of the unborn.
YouTube - Abortion -This is a Suction Abortion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0&feature=related)
muh_roads
04-30-2009, 09:44 AM
I've been in a women's clinic where they perform 4-8 week abortions. Sorry but what is being extracted is no bigger than the pin head of a needle.
Just more propaganda. Move along.
fisharmor
04-30-2009, 09:54 AM
I've been in a women's clinic where they perform 4-8 week abortions. Sorry but what is being extracted is no bigger than the pin head of a needle.
Just more propaganda. Move along.
http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overview-fetal-development
Day 21, Week 3: The heart begins to beat.
Day 35, Week 5: Five fingers can be discerned in the hand. The eyes darken as pigment is produced. The embryo is now the size of a raspberry.
Week 8: Now a little more than an inch long, the fetus has everything found in a fully developed adult.
Must be damned big pins you use at your house.
Just more propaganda. Move along.
Or don't move along, and realize that you either have to invent an arbitrary definition for what is human based on falsehoods like this, or you have to take an absolutist stance on the issue and assign that individual human being the same rights we demand.
If that person is not human, then we are 51% of the vote away from deciding something equally ridiculous, like if we decided that pro-choicers aren't human.
A. Havnes
04-30-2009, 10:16 AM
http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overview-fetal-development
Must be damned big pins you use at your house.
Just more propaganda. Move along.
Or don't move along, and realize that you either have to invent an arbitrary definition for what is human based on falsehoods like this, or you have to take an absolutist stance on the issue and assign that individual human being the same rights we demand.
If that person is not human, then we are 51% of the vote away from deciding something equally ridiculous, like if we decided that pro-choicers aren't human.
+1
AuH20
04-30-2009, 10:18 AM
What kind of noble civilization murders its own children for the sake of convenience? We are ruthless animals without conscience, when we perpetrate these crimes upon innocent, sentient beings. I'n glad this OP posted this for the people who are sleepwalking.
ClayTrainor
04-30-2009, 10:36 AM
What kind of noble civilization murders its own children for the sake of convenience? We are ruthless animals without conscience, when we perpetrate these crimes upon innocent, sentient beings. I'n glad this OP posted this for the people who are sleepwalking.
While i tend to agree with you, i think Ayn Rand has a pretty interesting perspective on abortion, from the "other side" of the argument.
What of the fetus? Does it have rights which must be respected? The concept of rights is based on man's nature and presupposes the existence of an actual, fully formed and separate human being. Fetuses and embryos are not actual human beings; they are potential human beings. They have no rights until they exist apart from the mother, i.e., at birth. This is not to condone the morality of arbitrarily delaying an abortion until the last months of pregnancy--when the fetus is approaching humanness. But the function of the law is to protect rights--not to dictate moral issues which involve no violation of rights.
The only proper function of government is to protect man's absolute rights against violation by other men. No government, no state, no collective has any "interest" apart from the individuals of which it is composed. Thus, it can have no "interest" which conflicts with any individual's rights, such as a paternalistic interest in "maternal health." Our Consitution was drafted in recognition of these principles. It was designed, not as a charter for government power, but as a protection against government power, i.e., against invasion of individual rights by the government. For this reason, the Constitution enumerates the limited powers of the government but not (as made clear in the Ninth Amendment) every individual right.
Ayn Rand is a cult figure and she takes individualism to extremes.
ChaosControl
04-30-2009, 10:59 AM
How anyone can claim to be pro-liberty and support abortion makes no sense to me. The two are very much opposites.
Check out this video of fetal development. If this is not a baby...what is it?...a frog?
Who here could actually bring himself to dosmember one of these precious creations. Just look and THINK.
If the MSM showed these kinds of videos, the public sentiment on this issue would change quickly.
YouTube - Pro-life Anti-Abortion Video: Development of the Unborn Baby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2l1-kvKomg&feature=related)
Zippyjuan
04-30-2009, 11:07 AM
Should the Government intervene into people's lives telling them what to do? I thought that was the basis of libertarianism. Let the market decide if they want it or not. Banning abortion is govenment intervention. The majority of people favor the rights of people to be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Can a minority tell them to buzz off?
HippyChimp
04-30-2009, 11:10 AM
bugger off. Get your divisive social issues out of my politics.
Should the Government intervene into people's lives telling them what to do? I thought that was the basis of libertarianism. Let the market decide if they want it or not. Banning abortion is govenment intervention. The majority of people favor the rights of people to be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Can a minority tell them to buzz off?
This is not an issue of "the market."
The Government's sole purpose IS to intervene in order to protect the strong from hurting the weak. babies are HUMAN, and thus, ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Unless, you really believe that the beings shown in the video aren't human. What are they then? Reptiles? Insects?
Banning abortion is no different than the current ban against rape and murder. It's not "the market's choice" to end innocent life.
HippyChimp
04-30-2009, 11:17 AM
This is not an issue of "the market."
Unless, you really believe that the beings shown in the video aren't human. What are they then? Reptiles? Insects?Some would say that at that stage they're parasites...
fisharmor
04-30-2009, 11:49 AM
What of the fetus? Does it have rights which must be respected? The concept of rights is based on man's nature and presupposes the existence of an actual, fully formed and separate human being. Fetuses and embryos are not actual human beings; they are potential human beings. They have no rights until they exist apart from the mother, i.e., at birth. This is not to condone the morality of arbitrarily delaying an abortion until the last months of pregnancy--when the fetus is approaching humanness. But the function of the law is to protect rights--not to dictate moral issues which involve no violation of rights.
The only proper function of government is to protect man's absolute rights against violation by other men. No government, no state, no collective has any "interest" apart from the individuals of which it is composed. Thus, it can have no "interest" which conflicts with any individual's rights, such as a paternalistic interest in "maternal health." Our Consitution was drafted in recognition of these principles. It was designed, not as a charter for government power, but as a protection against government power, i.e., against invasion of individual rights by the government. For this reason, the Constitution enumerates the limited powers of the government but not (as made clear in the Ninth Amendment) every individual right.
First, I don't remember the ceremony where she was crowned queen of libertarianism.
Second, she's engaging in exactly the same thing: she is inventing an arbitrary, personal definition of what a human is.
There is no functional difference between arbitrarily determining that the unborn are not human and have no rights, and arbitrarily determining that black people are not human and have no rights.
Some would say that at that stage they're parasites...
You sure as hell haven't spent much time around babies.
If my wife and I do not engage in a constant routine of feeding, changing, playing, rocking, etc. with my six-month-old girl, she will die. This represents a greater degree of parasitism than any pregnancy, and we haven't even gotten to the responsibilities that cost real money and time yet.
If I go home from work, pump my six-month-old full of methotrexate, dismember her, and put her in a biohazard disposal can, I will go to prison, period... despite the fact that she is manifestly more parasitic than she was one year ago.
jdmyprez_deo_vindice
04-30-2009, 12:20 PM
Some would say that at that stage they're parasites...
After a child is born they need to be fed, burped and waited on hand and foot. As they age they need more expensive clothes, school supplies, emotional comfort and support and they take up just as much of your time as, if not more than, they did as an infant. So you now have something that relies on you for literally everything from food to emotional support.So what sounds more like a parasite to you? A fetus or a fully developed child? Does this mean we can randomly murder any children that are inconvenient to us since they are parasites? What about the elderly or mentally retarded?
krazy kaju
04-30-2009, 12:29 PM
This why a baby doctor like Ron Paul is so pro-life. It's a pro-liberty issue...the liberty of the unborn.
The way you frame the debate is irresponsible. What about the liberty of the mother? Does an unborn human even have any liberty in the first place?
I'm unsure about abortion because there are two unknown variables. The first is whether or not all humans, regardless of moral agency, have rights. The second variable is the rights of the mother: is she allowed to kill someone invading her property?
jdmyprez_deo_vindice
04-30-2009, 12:36 PM
The problem is that as soon as a woman becomes pregnant her body ceases being merely her body and it becomes a life support vessel for her and another human being. If she wishes for it to remain merely her body than she should practice abstinence or have enough personal responsibility to use of of the many birth control options that are out there.
The way you frame the debate is irresponsible. What about the liberty of the mother? \The second variable is the rights of the mother: is she allowed to kill someone invading her property?
"Invading her property?"...The baby's body is NOT her property.
It is the baby's property and that innocent child - who did not ask to be conceived - is entitled to keep his own life.
If you break into my house, I have a right to assault you..even kill you.
But if I invite you in for tea, what right do I have to kill you? The baby didn't make her pregnant.
A civilized society protects its helpless.
All the arguments used to justify abortion are equally applicable to killing 5 year olds.
Imagine a woman saying:
"I should not be forced to a lifetime of servitude to others. So if I want to kill my five year old, it's my business."
LibertyWorker
04-30-2009, 12:39 PM
People should not use the force of government to give or take rights from people.
Do we really need the same people that sweep our streets and clean our sewers making judgment calls on what’s life and what’s not?
I think it’s a private matter between you and your doctor.
Protect privacy and you protect liberty;)
Max, are you pro parental notification?
Max, are you pro parental notification?
I'm for abolishing abortion, so parental notification would then be mute.
But until the day comes when people are enlightened enough to see abortion for what it is...of course a parent ought to be notified of what a minor child is about to be subjected to.
KoldKut
04-30-2009, 12:44 PM
...
Natalie
04-30-2009, 12:46 PM
The second variable is the rights of the mother: is she allowed to kill someone invading her property?
You make it sound like a baby in the womb is similar to an intruder breaking into your home. :confused:
I'm for abolishing abortion, so parental notification would then be mute.
But until the day comes when people are enlightened enough to see abortion for what it is...of course a parent ought to be notified of what a minor child is about to be subjected to.
Here in Florida they have parental notification.
If a minor wants to get an abortion, they have to tell their parents.
If they object to telling them, then the courts can step in and decide if the parents must be notified.
The courts can override the requirement if they determine that the minor could be in danger from the parents or in cases of incest.
To me, this amounts to nothing more than government approved abortion.
Something about that rubs me the wrong way.
The slippery slope comes into play as well.
If the government can determine who can HAVE an abortion, then it doesn’t seem to be to far down the slippery slope for them to decide who MUST have an abortion.
You make it sound like a baby in the womb is similar to an intruder breaking into your home. :confused:
Thats' what happens when people think TOO much....and don't leave any room for their hearts to FEEL......everthing is an exercise in logic when it doesnt need to be
Heart and mind must work together.
Extreme ideological absolutism of the Ayn Randian cultists is almost as detestable as Obama - mania.
ChaosControl
04-30-2009, 01:11 PM
The second variable is the rights of the mother: is she allowed to kill someone invading her property?
I first saw this and thought it was actually the first argument for abortion that was actually one to consider, but then I thought about it a bit...
Can a person who owns some land, let us say he owns 4 lots of land in a city. Say a 5 year old kid is playing ball and his ball goes on that person's land. The kid goes over there. Does that person have the right to kill that 5 year old because he invaded his property?
robert9712000
04-30-2009, 01:14 PM
To me its lame when people use the argument "what about the womans right to do what she wants with her body" .
Didnt she get to make her choice when she decided to have sex?
The question is ,should a person have to take responsibility for there actions (and yes i know some woman are raped,but im responding to a decision in where she chose.Even though i think it should be illegal in all cases)
Abortion is purley a selfish act of people not wanting to take responsibilty for there actions
Robert
fisharmor
04-30-2009, 01:23 PM
The first is whether or not all humans, regardless of moral agency, have rights.
I'm glad the invasion analogy was blasted appropriately, but this was missed...
...so let's logic through this.
We've already covered the possibility that all humans have rights, leading to the question of what a human is.
Let's assume that not all humans have rights.
In that case, the question becomes "Which humans have rights, and which do not?"
Are you willing to entertain that question? If you do, what arbitrary, personal preferences will you apply to that question?
When you have decided your arbitrary, personal preference regarding who is human and who is not, to what authority will you appeal to enforce that preference?
Didn't central Europe conclusively deal with that whole issue in the 1940s?
Didn't the old testament assert that parents had a right to kill their children if they broke god's laws? I think that's a great policy. Declare children to be the property of their parents, after all the parents made the kid. Anything else the parents make is theirs to do with as they will, including destruction, so why not apply that same rule to offspring?
Um... you're the first one to mention God in this thread... and if you want to make the argument that it's acceptable for me to use government to push a badly drawn caricature of my religion on society, then you're the one making that argument, not me.
A. Havnes
04-30-2009, 01:26 PM
To me its lame when people use the argument "what about the womans right to do what she wants with her body" .
Didnt she get to make her choice when she decided to have sex?
The question is ,should a person have to take responsibility for there actions (and yes i know some woman are raped,but im responding to a decision in where she chose.Even though i think it should be illegal in all cases)
Abortion is purley a selfish act of people not wanting to take responsibilty for there actions
Robert
That's what I think, too, particularly in the belief that pro-choice comes at the crucial moment when the woman must decide if she's going to have sex.
tonesforjonesbones
04-30-2009, 01:38 PM
Fellas..YOU shou;ld keep your horse in the BARN! TONES
klamath
04-30-2009, 02:45 PM
Some would say that at that stage they're parasites...
Some say blacks, muslims and hippies are parasites. Anyone that supports this had better never talk against war in morallistic terms. You have nothing over a neocon.
BuddyRey
04-30-2009, 02:55 PM
I'm pro-life myself, but it would probably give our side of the argument a lot more credibility to have a video like this hosted/narrated by a doctor rather than a Catholic priest. :(
HippyChimp
04-30-2009, 05:57 PM
Some say blacks, muslims and hippies are parasites. Anyone that supports this had better never talk against war in morallistic terms. You have nothing over a neocon.
Taking this personally, are we? That's the problem with you religous types, you can't hold a rational discussion. Dr. Paul says the abortion matter is best left to the states. I agree with him. It is a divisive, polarizing issue and has been used by the major parties to OWN YOUR VOTE for years. How's it feel to be used as a tool?
Austin
04-30-2009, 06:26 PM
Fellas..YOU shou;ld keep your horse in the BARN! TONES
Ladies, you should keep the gate to the pasture LOCKED.
;)
klamath
04-30-2009, 07:42 PM
Taking this personally, are we? That's the problem with you religous types, you can't hold a rational discussion. Dr. Paul says the abortion matter is best left to the states. I agree with him. It is a divisive, polarizing issue and has been used by the major parties to OWN YOUR VOTE for years. How's it feel to be used as a tool?
"bugger off. Get your divisive social issues out of my politics."
Little quote from your first post. Very rational argument:rolleyes:
I am not religous for your information.
RP when forced by Roe V Wade voted against abortions. I agree with RP that like all murder laws, abortion should be left to the states.
If I don't care whether the only truely innocent people on this earth are being killed I don't see why I should I care if Cheney locks people up in Gitmo and tortures them or carpet bombs Muslims, or hangs drug users?
RP stands pretty lonely as the only politician that fights endless killing whether it is in war or abortions.
Why should I care about fighting for someones freedom if they are just going to use those laws that protect their freedom to kill the innocent?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.