Woman dies after getting abortion in the 33rd week

[green73]

This morning Operation Rescue and the Maryland Coalition for Life announced that yesterday a woman died from complications after undergoing a late-term, 33-week abortion at the hands of the infamous abortionist, LeRoy Carhart, in Germantown, Maryland.

From Operation Rescue's press release:


The woman, who came for a third trimester abortion from out-of-state, arrived at GRHC on Sunday and was seen by pro-life activists every day through Wednesday. Witnesses said she appeared “pale and weak.”

Early Thursday morning, the woman began suffering chest pain and other discomforts. Her attempts to reach Carhart were unsuccessful. The woman was taken by her family from her hotel to a nearby hospital emergency room at approximately 5:00 a.m. Efforts by hospital staff to contact Carhart or get informational assistance from the abortion clinic were unsuccessful.

The patient suffered massive internal bleeding into her abdominal cavity. She slipped into a Code Blue condition approximately six times before finally succumbing to her injuries at around 9:30 a.m. The case has been placed with the Medical Examiner for further investigation.

cont
http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/woman-dies-following-late-term-abortion-carhart-clinic

[kathy88]

So sad.

[Smart3]

Why did she get one so late? if it was not to save her life, then she deserved to die.

[Danke]

Why did she get one so late? if it was not to save her life, then she deserved to die.

Why? Obviously because we don't provide adequate health care in this country. The budget needs to be expanded, especially for reproductive rights.

[kathy88]

Why did she get one so late? if it was not to save her life, then she deserved to die.

I'm guessing you are not a Christian, amirite?

[Smart3]

Why? Obviously because we don't provide adequate health care in this country. The budget needs to be expanded, especially for reproductive rights.

Even still, waiting to the 33rd week? You could literally force the fetus out of her and it would survive. Hell I was born at 33 weeks!

Which budget? state or federal?


I'm guessing you are not a Christian, amirite?
I thought my signature was pretty clear. Ayn Rand is one of my heroes, so you have your answer.

[kathy88]

Even still, waiting to the 33rd week? You could literally force the fetus out of her and it would survive. Hell I was born at 33 weeks!

Which budget? state or federal?


I thought my signature was pretty clear. Ayn Rand is one of my heroes, so you have your answer.

I don't really read everyone's signature line, your response made it pretty obvious.

[luctor-et-emergo]

One count of murder and one count of manslaughter ?
But currently: an accident.

Sad story.

[Confederate]

Even still, waiting to the 33rd week? You could literally force the fetus out of her and it would survive. Hell I was born at 33 weeks!

Isn't your view on abortion that the fetus isn't a person until it is born? Didn't you once even say you're not sure if it's immoral to murder a newborn?

For some reason I find your 'outrage' insincere.

[TywinLannister]

I hate to say she got what she deserved... so I will just say that actions have consequences.

[Neil Desmond]

Why did she get one so late? if it was not to save her life, then she deserved to die.
Why, exactly, does she deserve to die?

[jmdrake]

But....but....but.....if we don't have abortion on demand throughout the entire pregnancy women will die from back alley abortions. :rolleyes:

[Danke]

LeRoy Harrison Carhart (born 1941) is an American abortionist from Nebraska who became well known for his participation in the Supreme Court cases Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Carhart, both of which dealt with intact dilation and extraction (colloquially known as partial birth abortion), a controversial abortion procedure. Late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart performed abortions in 2005 and 2013 which led to the deaths of two women due to abortion-related complications.

[Confederate]

LeRoy Harrison Carhart (born 1941) is an American abortionist from Nebraska who became well known for his participation in the Supreme Court cases Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Carhart, both of which dealt with intact dilation and extraction (colloquially known as partial birth abortion), a controversial abortion procedure. Late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart performed abortions in 2005 and 2013 which led to the deaths of two women due to abortion-related complications.

I honestly think that guy should be executed.


Carhart is a retired U.S. Air Force officer.

Had to be...

[Smart3]

Isn't your view on abortion that the fetus isn't a person until it is born? Didn't you once even say you're not sure if it's immoral to murder a newborn?

For some reason I find your 'outrage' insincere.

I don't have a problem with late abortions, my concern is that a simple solution would be to just deliver, as opposed to killing the fetus which is literally a step away from becoming human.

Late abortions usually mean abortions between 24-28, not the last month of pregnancy. If you can deliver without causing harm to yourself or the fetus, then you have no rational reason to abort. At that point, it's evictionism (a la Walter Block).


Why, exactly, does she deserve to die?
She waited 8 months to get an abortion. Someone that stupid should have suffered even more than this woman did. She was evil, and like any evil person, should be removed from society. This is not a women's rights issue, there is no right to abort when eviction is clearly the right thing to do. She had enough money to travel to this doctor's clinic, so she had enough money to take care of the potential child. This sort of irresponsibility is exactly why late abortions are so rare, both in the US and the rest of the world. No one wants to hear "Woman dies from late abortion".


I honestly think that guy should be executed.



Had to be...
His actions led to the deaths of two women. He violated his Oath as a doctor. He should surrender his degrees, pay restitution to the next-of-kins and never practice "medicine" again or be locked up on manslaughter charges.

Sure, mistakes happen and people die. However, this was not an acceptable mistake. Executing him would be giving him an easier death than his victims, unless you killed him the same way he killed that woman and her fetus.

[Seraphim]

33 weeks...holy shit...what the hell was she AND her doctor thinking?

People tend to be retarded, but the DOCTOR?

Kill and forced evacuation of a near ready to be born baby...yep...there won't be physiological consequences to that.

That twit of a woman almost assuredly got her life handed to her by nature for very, very legit reasons...but that doctor is a god damn nut-bar. For just a moment, forget the moral issues...from a medical perspective...33 WEEKS...YOU FUCKING MORON.

The doctor should have looked her in the eyes and said:

"Have the baby 2 weeks from now and put it up for adoption. If you think that sounds bad I will meticulously outline the thousands of ways in which this procedure is going to destroy your inside and possibly result in your death. Would you like for me to describe how evacuating 7 pound dead fetus will tear against your uterine walls and bled you from the inside? No? Have the baby you selfish little hag."

I'm sure the doctor is a coward though.

[presence]

I'm just going to pretend this was failed medical necessity; I have no other place to categorize this.

[Confederate]

I don't have a problem with late abortions

Disgusting.

[Quark]

I'm more saddened by the more-than 8 month old life they murdered.

[Confederate]

His actions led to the deaths of two women. He violated his Oath as a doctor.

He's also murdered countless children. This guy should be executed for murder.

[green73]

http://asweetsouvenir.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/33-weeks.jpg

[Seraphim]

Which was exactly the point in my above post.

Unfucking real that this doctor even entertained the notion of aborting at 33 weeks. What I said is beyond relevant in a medical sense.

That doctor is out of his fucking mind.


http://asweetsouvenir.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/33-weeks.jpg

[Seraphim]

Hey Smart3 - if that's not human to you I don't know what the fuck is.

[Confederate]

http://asweetsouvenir.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/33-weeks.jpg

Baby born at 33 weeks:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cw0x6PdjPw

[itshappening]

Sickening.

Of course the president support late abortions. He sponsored bills in Illinois.

[Smart3]

Hey Smart3 - if that's not human to you I don't know what the fuck is.

It remains a potential human until it is born. Although it is certainly capable of being a human, which makes an abortion in the 33rd week, tricky in terms of ethics.

[catfeathers]

So sad. This baby was 6 weeks further developed than my grandson was. He lived for 2 days and quite possibly would have made it if it hadn't been for Group B strep. He would be 4 this month. Some people at his funeral, which was very well attended, seemed to be surprised that it was a very well developed, although very small, baby laying there in the casket. I am thankful that his mother, now my son's ex-wife, gave him a chance at life. He had to be delivered by a very painful emergency cesarean.

I can't say I mourn much for the woman who would elect to kill a child that would soon be born. It couldn't have been that much of an inconvenience to wait a few weeks more and let it be adopted.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Did the baby die too?

edit: both died.

[Confederate]

I can't say I mourn much for the woman who would elect to kill a child that would soon be born.

I do. I very much doubt she was some sort of sociopath who would carry a child for 33 weeks and not feel anything murdering it. Something went terribly wrong in her life and she paid the ultimate price for it. I just hope she repented before dying and asked the Lord for forgiveness.

[TywinLannister]

Baby born at 33 weeks:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cw0x6PdjPw

Ok, I take back my earlier statement, she deserved to die, and execute the doctor.

[Ranger29860]

He's also murdered countless children. This guy should be executed for murder.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why we have incidents in this country of abortion doctors (late or early) being murdered.

Sad to see this happen both to the baby and to the mother. I can't imagine a state of mind she must have been in to justify that procedure so close to birth. But my interest is a little peeked that I can not find a single main stream news story on this. Though I kinda understands why since we do not usually hear about botched medical procedures all that much on a national stage, and the last time someone did get that much attention a pro life nut job ( that particular person was a nut not the whole pro life movement) killed him. Most of what I can find is VERY one sided rhetoric from pro life groups. So I am curios if certain details are being left out of this. Though judging by this guy's history I really doubt he is nothing more than a really shitty doctor (becoming unavailable during a multiple day procedure.)

[Confederate]

And that ladies and gentlemen is why we have incidents in this country of abortion doctors (late or early) being murdered.

I'm not asking for vigilante justice. I think he should be tried for murder in a fair, open, and transparent trial and hopefully be convicted by a jury and sentences to death. It's the only appropriate punishment, in my opinion, for the murder of countless innocent children.

I fully believe in the 5th Amendment:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Ranger29860]

I'm not asking for vigilante justice. I think he should be tried for murder in a fair, open, and transparent trial and hopefully be convicted by a jury and sentences to death. It's the only appropriate punishment, in my opinion, for the murder of countless innocent children.

I fully believe in the 5th Amendment:

I'm not gonna get involved in a person hood argument over this. god knows we have enough of those on the forums lol. I was just referring to the whole execute stance some seem to take on this. Some people (like the nutjob that killed Tiller) take that kind of rhetoric as a sign to go ahead and do it.

[Confederate]

I'm not gonna get involved in a person hood argument over this. god knows we have enough of those on the forums lol. I was just referring to the whole execute stance some seem to take on this. Some people (like the nutjob that killed Tiller) take that kind of rhetoric as a sign to go ahead and do it.

I'm not responsible for what they might take this 'rhetoric.' Nor will I shed any tears if a late-turn abortionist is gunned down. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of those actions or endorse them in any way. I think that anyone who is to be executed for a heinous crime (and there really are very, very few things more heinous than a late term abortion) such as this, but only after a trial and guilty verdict.

[Sola_Fide]

It remains a potential human until it is born.

That makes absolutely no sense.

[erowe1]

Even still, waiting to the 33rd week? You could literally force the fetus out of her and it would survive. Hell I was born at 33 weeks!


The whole point of abortion is for the baby not to survive. They wanted to kill that baby whether it was inside her or outside her.

[erowe1]

I'm not asking for vigilante justice. I think he should be tried for murder in a fair, open, and transparent trial and hopefully be convicted by a jury and sentences to death. It's the only appropriate punishment, in my opinion, for the murder of countless innocent children.


I agree. But that kind of thing is serious business. Far too serious for the state to be involved.

[Smart3]

The whole point of abortion is for the baby not to survive. They wanted to kill that baby whether it was inside her or outside her.

I recommend you check out Walter Block's case for evictionism, and perhaps then you'll understand.

[erowe1]

I recommend you check out Walter Block's case for evictionism, and perhaps then you'll understand.

I wonder how many people have read that, and if this dead woman did.

Because for pretty much the whole world, the point of abortion is to kill the baby. And if she had an abortion in the 33rd week, then it's doubtful that she had any interest in alternatives that involved the baby living. The reason she didn't go the route of abandoning him to die in a dumpster is because she would have gotten in trouble for it because there are still neanderthals out there who think mothers are obligated to take care of their children.

[ghengis86]

I didn't even want to read this thread and now I'm sorry I did.

Holy shut, this is fucked up...33 weeks?!?!

Another story for the "we are utterly and completely fucked" file

[erowe1]

Though judging by this guy's history I really doubt he is nothing more than a really shitty doctor (becoming unavailable during a multiple day procedure.)

I'm not surprised he would be unavailable. I wouldn't doubt that every time he does it he has to spend a few days really drunk or high afterward to get his mind off it.

[libertygrl]

It remains a potential human until it is born. Although it is certainly capable of being a human, which makes an abortion in the 33rd week, tricky in terms of ethics.

Does it have a heartbeat? Was it created and conceived by humans? Seems to settle it for me.

I feel terrible for both the mother and child. We don't know what she was going through or her state of mind. The Doc is the one who should be tried for muder.

[Smart3]

Does it have a heartbeat? Was it created and conceived by humans? Seems to settle it for me.

I feel terrible for both the mother and child. We don't know what she was going through or her state of mind. The Doc is the one who should be tried for muder.

Conception is the beginning of a 9-month process to create a human being.

[Quark]

Conception is the beginning of a 9-month process to create a human being.

Actually, development does not end with pre-natal development, and there is no distinction between being in the womb a minute before exiting that womb.

[alucard13mmfmj]

In what circumstances would cause her to get an abortion and especially that late into it?

If her life was not in danger... I have no sympathy.

If it was rape/incest, shouldve done it within 0-5 days.

Sad to lose 2 lives.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

live by the sword, die by the sword.

[green73]

live by the sword, die by the sword.

I thought about posting that.

[Smart3]

Actually, development does not end with pre-natal development, and there is no distinction between being in the womb a minute before exiting that womb.
Except the most important distinction - the breath of life. The fetus is dependent on the woman for its oxygen, whereas a baby is not.

[pacodever]

Conception is the beginning of a 9-month process to create a human being.


Except the most important distinction - the breath of life. The fetus is dependent on the woman for its oxygen, whereas a baby is not.

:rolleyes:

So you are basing whether its human on the functional status of a single one of its organs? Well, lets just start pulling the plug on all those non-humans. Need a heart procedure or transplant? Fuck you. Dialysis? Fuck you. Coma? Fuck you. Liver disease? Fuck you.

It doesn't matter where you draw your arbitrary line between person and non-person. It is still arbitrary and to end a life (or a human-to-be, life under-development, fetus), an action without advocacy, representation, recourse or appeal for the victim, based on your or anyone else's arbitrary line is a violation of natural law, IMHO.

[Confederate]

:rolleyes:

So you are basing whether its human on the functional status of a single one of its organs? Well, lets just start pulling the plug on all those non-humans. Need a heart procedure or transplant? Fuck you. Dialysis? Fuck you. Coma? Fuck you. Liver disease? Fuck you.

It doesn't matter where you draw your arbitrary line between person and non-person. It is still arbitrary and to end a life (or a human-to-be, life under-development, fetus), an action without advocacy, representation, recourse or appeal for the victim, based on your or anyone else's arbitrary line is a violation of natural law, IMHO.

No need for CPR, the person isn't breathing therefore not human.

[thoughtomator]

I can't see any rationale for a 33rd week abortion. By that point the baby can be born by Caesarian section in a less dangerous procedure than the abortion. There's no possible "health of the mother" argument at all at that point.

[RickyJ]

It was a late abortion in more ways than one. Murder has consequences.

[bolil]

Blenders do not belong in vaginas.

[Neil Desmond]

She waited 8 months to get an abortion. Someone that stupid should have suffered even more than this woman did. She was evil, and like any evil person, should be removed from society. This is not a women's rights issue, there is no right to abort when eviction is clearly the right thing to do. She had enough money to travel to this doctor's clinic, so she had enough money to take care of the potential child. This sort of irresponsibility is exactly why late abortions are so rare, both in the US and the rest of the world. No one wants to hear "Woman dies from late abortion".
If it's ok to have an abortion at all, then it's ok to have an abortion anytime or to slaughter a human being even after it's born. To me it's not ok to have an abortion at all, but I don't think that a pregnant woman deserves to die for having an abortion at any time.

[erowe1]

I can't see any rationale for a 33rd week abortion. By that point the baby can be born by Caesarian section in a less dangerous procedure than the abortion. There's no possible "health of the mother" argument at all at that point.

The problem with a C-section is you're not allowed to kill the baby when you do that.

[Origanalist]

It remains a potential human until it is born. Although it is certainly capable of being a human, which makes an abortion in the 33rd week, tricky in terms of ethics.

Right, "tricky". It's a sick world.

[Origanalist]

:rolleyes:

So you are basing whether its human on the functional status of a single one of its organs? Well, lets just start pulling the plug on all those non-humans. Need a heart procedure or transplant? Fuck you. Dialysis? Fuck you. Coma? Fuck you. Liver disease? Fuck you.

It doesn't matter where you draw your arbitrary line between person and non-person. It is still arbitrary and to end a life (or a human-to-be, life under-development, fetus), an action without advocacy, representation, recourse or appeal for the victim, based on your or anyone else's arbitrary line is a violation of natural law, IMHO.

+ rep

[Smart3]

:rolleyes:

So you are basing whether its human on the functional status of a single one of its organs? Well, lets just start pulling the plug on all those non-humans. Need a heart procedure or transplant? Fuck you. Dialysis? Fuck you. Coma? Fuck you. Liver disease? Fuck you.

It doesn't matter where you draw your arbitrary line between person and non-person. It is still arbitrary and to end a life (or a human-to-be, life under-development, fetus), an action without advocacy, representation, recourse or appeal for the victim, based on your or anyone else's arbitrary line is a violation of natural law, IMHO.
I seriously doubt we could have a conversation on this issue without stabbing one another. I believe our rights are innate from birth, not conception. A right to life (and everything possible to maintain/preserve it) is not applicable to ZEF's.


The problem with a C-section is you're not allowed to kill the baby when you do that.
The infanticide lobby (and yes, they exist) may be able to change that really soon.

[osan]

Why did she get one so late? if it was not to save her life, then she deserved to die.

WTF?

[Anti Federalist]

Which was exactly the point in my above post.

Unfucking real that this doctor even entertained the notion of aborting at 33 weeks. What I said is beyond relevant in a medical sense.

That doctor is out of his fucking mind.

It's the mad doctors and mad scientists that will end life as we know it, mark my words.

[smhbbag]

I am not upset if murder is not safe for the murderers.

Let it be illegal, unsafe, and rare. Just like other murder.

[Kylie]

My girlfriend has what should be a newborn baby. She is almost 4 months old, though.

She had her baby at 26 weeks, and that little girl fought every single day to breath. And she did.

I just don't get how you can justify this in any way, shape or form, from the mothers perspective, or the doctors.

It's at least one murder, and one manslaughter.

I have done things in my life I wish I could take back. I'll bet this woman, in her last hours, was thinking about that.

Or maybe not. She seems to have been thinking about herself the whole time.

[pacodever]

I seriously doubt we could have a conversation on this issue without stabbing one another. I believe our rights are innate from birth, not conception. A right to life (and everything possible to maintain/preserve it) is not applicable to ZEF's.

Well, that's one hell of an argument. Kill something before they meet your requirements to a right to life, and it's not actually killing. Like I said, you can debate person/nonpersonhood and their associated rights all day, but these are still arbitrary lines. If you were to ask any living person if it would have been ok for their mother to decide to terminate their life (for non-medical reasons) between conception and birth, 99.99+% are going to say no. To apply any other standard is hypocrisy.

[thoughtomator]

I believe our rights are innate from birth, not conception.

Our rights are innate to what we are, not when. You were you before you were born, while you were in the womb. You were a person at that time. You did have rights.

I personally oppose a legislative approach to most forms of abortion for a number of reasons, first and foremost I don't think it actually stops abortion. But this third-trimester stuff can't be countenanced; these babies are developed enough to survive outside the womb with a little bit of help. I can't help but to think that if a woman lets a pregnancy get that far, she wants the child, and these late abortions are largely the result of her being coerced into getting rid of it by some other party.

As far as earlier-in-the-term abortions go, that's when we get into serious grey areas - for example, it's easy enough to pass off such an abortion as a miscarriage, or for a genuine miscarriage to be mistaken for having had an abortion. There are quite a number of methods to induce a miscarriage, as well. Because a pregnancy is inside her own body, a woman de facto can decide to end a pregnancy at an early stage on her own and no one will be able to prove it wasn't natural in most cases, and I don't find it reasonable to presume every miscarriage constitutes probable cause. Ultimately some things are beyond the reach of what government can do and these things must be left up to God to sort out.

[Smart3]

Well, that's one hell of an argument. Kill something before they meet your requirements to a right to life, and it's not actually killing. Like I said, you can debate person/nonpersonhood and their associated rights all day, but these are still arbitrary lines. If you were to ask any living person if it would have been ok for their mother to decide to terminate their life (for non-medical reasons) between conception and birth, 99.99+% are going to say no. To apply any other standard is hypocrisy.

I'm part of the 00.01% then. You are clearly isolated from the rest of the world over there in OK. Pro-lifers here can't mention the word abortion without being laughed at or losing horribly. I will never understand your side, and perhaps you won't understand mine. We have fundamentally different worldviews, for me the argument has nothing to do with my own personal feelings - it's about what is best for society: unwanted children or productive members of society.

Call me an (Ayn) Randbot if you wish.


Our rights are innate to what we are, not when. You were you before you were born, while you were in the womb. You were a person at that time. You did have rights.

I personally oppose a legislative approach to most forms of abortion for a number of reasons, first and foremost I don't think it actually stops abortion. But this third-trimester stuff can't be countenanced; these babies are developed enough to survive outside the womb with a little bit of help. I can't help but to think that if a woman lets a pregnancy get that far, she wants the child, and these late abortions are largely the result of her being coerced into getting rid of it by some other party.

As far as earlier-in-the-term abortions go, that's when we get into serious grey areas - for example, it's easy enough to pass off such an abortion as a miscarriage, or for a genuine miscarriage to be mistaken for having had an abortion. There are quite a number of methods to induce a miscarriage, as well. Because a pregnancy is inside her own body, a woman de facto can decide to end a pregnancy at an early stage on her own and no one will be able to prove it wasn't natural in most cases, and I don't find it reasonable to presume every miscarriage constitutes probable cause. Ultimately some things are beyond the reach of what government can do and these things must be left up to God to sort out.
No, I was not. I was not me until I was ripped from my mother's womb, severed from her, and took my first breath. I had no rights until that point, for I was the property of another human being.

You can believe as you wish, but keep your religion to yourself.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

You are clearly isolated from the rest of the world over there in OK.

Or maybe you're isolated in some leftist area of the country (northeast, pacific coast), whereas the middle and southeast parts aren't as inclined to think killing unborn babies is something worth being proud of?

[Smart3]

Or maybe you're isolated in some leftist area of the country (northeast, pacific coast), whereas the middle and southeast parts aren't as inclined to think killing unborn babies is something worth being proud of?

You know where I live. You know how I'm the only pro-choice person I know.

Tolerance is not a leftist concept. Women who get abortions may very well be evil, but I am not their judge, nor should you be.

[TER]

This is not because of the fault of God, but because of sin in the world which fights against God. It is the 'apartness' creation has from God because of the evil choices of Adam who was made steward and lord over creation. And we too, like Adam, live in disobedience and in sin due to the corruption and darkness (emptiness) which occurred in the fall of our human nature. Because of our pride and our fear in the world, amongst the multitude of other passions and sins. Such tragic deaths such as with this young woman and her infant child occur because here we fight against the world and the demons in the world and we have lost our way. It is later when we will live in eternal joy and loving communion with God. Here, we struggle and toil, we work in the fields and our house.

Master, may You have these two souls, mother and child. May You grace them with Your over-abounding love and Your tender loving kindness. May our Father in Heaven have mercy upon these souls who were taken so violently from us, who have left behind grieving loved ones in tears and mourning. Have them together by your loving kindness.

It is because of the sinful choices we choose apart from Your Word which cause us to stray further from You, choosing our own will above the will of God. The choices our fallen natures have made as idols, our own self-justification and self-glorification which led to Adam's first sin. It is the doubting of God and then the killing of God which lies in the heart of all evil men. Those who from the days of Noah have put themselves against Your Holy Word and who now still fight unto their very damnation. To what we worship, we glorify, and if evil against God Who is Good, then to Satan or our own minds, and cut ourselves away from You Who are life.

May You Lord have mercy upon this young mother and baby. May they rest in one another's embrace, in forgiveness and in love. May you also have mercy upon us sinners who sin against You every day. For while we know by Your Word that there is a hell and separation from God, we also know from Your Word dying on the Cross, that we have been given a Savior, and that to those who worship Him in body and soul, they too will rise again through the resurrection of our bodies made possible by the Risen Christ. Our Passover from death into life. Our Pascha and great hope.

Let us learn from this tragedy whatever it is we must learn, we who sin against you.
Let us change our ways to be more according to Your Word.
Show us, above all, You tender mercies, and grant us remission of sins, for all our hope is in Thee our God.

[pacodever]

I'm part of the 00.01% then. You are clearly isolated from the rest of the world over there in OK. Pro-lifers here can't mention the word abortion without being laughed at or losing horribly. I will never understand your side, and perhaps you won't understand mine. We have fundamentally different worldviews, for me the argument has nothing to do with my own personal feelings - it's about what is best for society: unwanted children or productive members of society.

I've lived in Oklahoma, East Coast, West Coast, and overseas. I've traveled to over 2 dozen countries. Not sure how my current location matters.

Laughed at or losing horribly? What would I have to lose by honestly stating my case? As for those that would laugh or claim victory, I think that is more revealing of their character than mine or the quality of my argument. I don't see anything worth laughing or celebrating about this issue.

As for productive members of society or unwanted children, that is impossible to determine given that you would terminate their existence before reaching an age of productivity. The time for these considerations is before conception. That is where this issue needs to be addressed, with education and discussion between free adults, not ripping life from the womb.

[thoughtomator]

No, I was not. I was not me until I was ripped from my mother's womb, severed from her, and took my first breath. I had no rights until that point, for I was the property of another human being.

You can believe as you wish, but keep your religion to yourself.

I'm echoing the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence, so if you've got a problem, you've got a problem with it being self-evident that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

[Smart3]

I'm echoing the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence, so if you've got a problem, you've got a problem with it being self-evident that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
You're damn right I do. Our rights are innate, without a Creator or government granting them.


I've lived in Oklahoma, East Coast, West Coast, and overseas. I've traveled to over 2 dozen countries. Not sure how my current location matters.

Laughed at or losing horribly? What would I have to lose by honestly stating my case? As for those that would laugh or claim victory, I think that is more revealing of their character than mine or the quality of my argument. I don't see anything worth laughing or celebrating about this issue.

As for productive members of society or unwanted children, that is impossible to determine given that you would terminate their existence before reaching an age of productivity. The time for these considerations is before conception. That is where this issue needs to be addressed, with education and discussion between free adults, not ripping life from the womb.
Children who were not wanted by their mother very rarely become anything special, and usually become criminals. So as part of crime prevention, they should be aborted. Before you say "but what about adoption?", we already have way too many kids in need of adoption.

[Kregisen]

for me the argument has nothing to do with my own personal feelings - it's about what is best for society: unwanted children or productive members of society.


So you are implying we should kill all retarded/handicapped people, all people over the age of 80 (due to astronomical health care costs, relative to "healthy" working population), all young orphans, and all "unproductive" homeless people, because it is "best for society"?

You are also implying we should force every U.S. citizen to have atleast 1 hour of exercise per day, in order to do what is "best for society" and lower the country's healthcare costs?


This is your exact argument in your quotes. It might be worth re-thinking, otherwise I think you mistook the ronpaulforums.com for the hitlereugenicistforums.com.

[Kregisen]

On a different note, when are abortions illegal in most states? I am not very familair with abortion laws but was under the impression late term abortions were illegal.

[thoughtomator]

You're damn right I do. Our rights are innate, without a Creator or government granting them.

Saying rights are given to us by our Creator is a metaphor for saying our rights are innate. They are not different statements.

[Brian4Liberty]

How does a "Doctor" like this still have a license to practice medicine?

[John F Kennedy III]

Why did she get one so late? if it was not to save her life, then she deserved to die.

Absolutely.

[bolil]

Good, murderer dies in the act. Justice served. Next up: Doctor.

[aGameOfThrones]

How does a "Doctor" like this still have a license to practice medicine?

Not enough laws?

[pacodever]

Children who were not wanted by their mother very rarely become anything special, and usually become criminals. So as part of crime prevention, they should be aborted. Before you say "but what about adoption?", we already have way too many kids in need of adoption.

Haha! Ok. I would love to see actual statistics on that. What you said is not quantifiable in any way. Spare me any anecdotal evidence. I would not be comforted with you sitting in judgment of whether a life was special and productive or should be aborted.

Promoting abortion as a means for crime prevention is one of the most asinine suggestions I have ever heard. For a Ayn Rand Bot, you seem to be supporting some significant central social planning measures. I think you are on the wrong forum.

I didn't mention adoption. You did. Like I said earlier, I support adults practicing due consideration before engaging in reproductive acts, as reproduction is a common result.

[Smart3]

So you are implying we should kill all retarded/handicapped people, all people over the age of 80 (due to astronomical health care costs, relative to "healthy" working population), all young orphans, and all "unproductive" homeless people, because it is "best for society"?

You are also implying we should force every U.S. citizen to have atleast 1 hour of exercise per day, in order to do what is "best for society" and lower the country's healthcare costs?


This is your exact argument in your quotes. It might be worth re-thinking, otherwise I think you mistook the ronpaulforums.com for the hitlereugenicistforums.com.

I only support abortion, not involuntary euthanasia. Please don't Strawman.

[Aeroneous]

Haha! Ok. I would love to see actual statistics on that. What you said is not quantifiable in any way. Spare me any anecdotal evidence. I would not be comforted with you sitting in judgment of whether a life was special and productive or should be aborted.

Education statistics for foster children (those who were not wanted by their parents for one reason or another at some point):
http://www.fostercarealumni.org/resources/foster_care_facts_and_statistics.htm

Pretty poor. I know people around here don't really value our education system too much, but there's certainly a connection between a lack of education and success in life. There are plenty of exceptions, obviously.

As for crime...

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2011/05/adoption-foster-care-zill


Although children in long-term foster care represent only a small fraction of the total child population of the United States, they represent a much bigger portion of the young people who go on to create serious disciplinary problems in schools, drop out of high school, become unemployed and homeless, bear children as unmarried teenagers, abuse drugs and alcohol, and commit crimes. A recent study of a Midwest sample of young adults aged twenty-three or twenty-four who had aged out of foster care found that they had extremely high rates of arrest and incarceration. 81 percent of the long-term foster care males had been arrested at some point, and 59 percent had been convicted of at least one crime. This compares with 17 percent of all young men in the U.S. who had been arrested, and 10 percent who had been convicted of a crime. Likewise, 57 percent of the long-term foster care females had been arrested and 28 percent had been convicted of a crime. The comparative figures for all female young adults in the U.S. are 4 percent and 2 percent, respectively.

Obviously the issue could be with foster homes, but there is a correlation. When over 50% of reported adoptions are actually relative/step-parent adoptions, that leaves roughly 10% of the annual foster care population being adopted each year. So quite a few children that are put up for adoption (not wanted by parents for some reason) end up spending significant amounts of time in foster homes which produce high rates of uneducated criminals.

It's not a perfect analysis, but you can quantify the situation to a certain extent. The stats in that last paragraph were done with some quick math pulled from childwelfare.gov

[Smart3]

On a different note, when are abortions illegal in most states? I am not very familair with abortion laws but was under the impression late term abortions were illegal.

Late abortions are banned in many states. First trimester abortions are legal in all states, and second trimester abortions rarely have restrictions.


Saying rights are given to us by our Creator is a metaphor for saying our rights are innate. They are not different statements.
We don't have a creator.

[Aeroneous]

Saying rights are given to us by our Creator is a metaphor for saying our rights are innate. They are not different statements.

I have to disagree. One statement suggests that rights are given to us by a supreme being while the other suggests they are born of a more moral understanding amongst humanity.

I've never seen anything suggesting that this statement was metaphorical in nature when written, although I could be wrong.

[KrokHead]

Why did she get one so late? if it was not to save her life, then she deserved to die.
... NICE!

[RickyJ]

We don't have a creator.

I suppose this site doesn't have a creator either since it is vastly less complex than a human being, it must have been random chance that it came together. I am sure Josh will be amused at that thought.

[Kylie]

We don't have a creator.

Really?

Did you just magically appear here? Breathing air? A walking, talking productive human- being.


We are created, be it by what someone wants to refer to as a "God", or by our parents.

It takes two people to create each one of us. But the work doesn't end there, unless those people decide they don't want their creation.

[Confederate]

for me the argument has nothing to do with my own personal feelings - it's about what is best for society: unwanted children or productive members of society.

And now we get to the root of your beliefs. Rights only matter if they serve the common good.

[Confederate]

Children who were not wanted by their mother very rarely become anything special, and usually become criminals. So as part of crime prevention, they should be aborted.

You are one sick fuck, you know that, right?

[jj-]

Really?

Did you just magically appear here? Breathing air? A walking, talking productive human- being.

Did the creator just magically appear?

[pcosmar]

Well,,she won't have to worry about looking fat in a bathing suit.

:(

.

[Ranger29860]

I'm seeing a lot of assumptions on why she did it, but no proof. We have very little in the way of facts on what happened. All of the reporting seems to be coming from pro life groups which will move some of the discussion away from details that may shine a different light on this. Not to mention the relatively newness of this story.

As far as we know there is just as much possibility that she may have been in medical danger or done it just to do it. I really wish some on these boards would breathe for a second before espousing things like "she deserved to die".

[Kregisen]

Did the creator just magically appear?

This is going off on a tangent, but obviously, whatever created the essence of time is outside of time, so obviously saying anything referring to past tense about a "creator of time" is false by definition. This is why you can't cluelessly say "so what created God?".

Time either always existed or had a beginning. If it always existed, all possible events, however unlikely, would have occurred already, with probability 1. Since events are still occurring/not occurred yet, this means time has not always existed and had a beginning. In order for time to begin, some outside source must have begun it. Call this outside source what you want. I call it God, but this part is where humans will disagree. But saying there is no outside source, or time wasn't created, or "what created God?" is just dumb.

[Lightweis]

Late abortions are banned in many states. First trimester abortions are legal in all states, and second trimester abortions rarely have restrictions.


We don't have a creator.

I am disgusted with this individual

[jj-]

This is going off on a tangent, but obviously, whatever created the essence of time is outside of time, so obviously saying anything referring to past tense about a "creator of time" is false by definition.

The action of creation can only occur if time exists. Creation involve a change in a state of things, so it must involve time.

[Kregisen]

I only support abortion, not involuntary euthanasia. Please don't Strawman.

I think you're simply trolling everyone her on purpose....this is your quote:


for me the argument has nothing to do with my own personal feelings - it's about what is best for society: unwanted children or productive members of society.

You clearly state rights don't matter, "it's about what is best for society" - not once this entire thread have you tried to make the claim that fetuses/unborn kids don't have rights. If you're pro-choice, the only argument you can try to make is fetuses don't have rights, or the mother's right to kill whatever she put in her body is greater than the baby's right to life. But eugenicist arguments like the ones you're making in this thread are just plain sick.

[jj-]

But saying there is no outside source, or time wasn't created, or "what created God?" is just dumb.

Saying that time was created is dumb. The act of deciding to create something, or even creating it, requires the existence of time.

[Kregisen]

The action of creation can only occur if time exists. Creation involve a change in a state of things, so it must involve time.

How can you prove that? I just disproved the notion that time has always existed. It hasn't.

[S.Shorland]

I would be interested to know this 'doctor's' true motivations.

[Kregisen]

Saying that time was created is dumb. The act of deciding to create something, or even creating it, requires the existence of time.


Everything inside of time requires time. Are you seriously trying to say that something outside of time requires time? If time doesn't exist outside of time, how can time be required?

[jj-]

I just disproved the notion that time has always existed.

lol

[Aeroneous]

Everything inside of time requires time. Are you seriously trying to say that something outside of time requires time? If time doesn't exist outside of time, how can time be required?

Inside or outside of time, an object of some variation (in this discussion: a Creator) existed. It's easy just say, "He/She exists outside of time so they don't need a creator." Even outside of time, the object had to originate from SOMEWHERE. Existence necessitates origination. It's a circular argument to which we will probably never have a definitive answer. It is impossible, with humanity's current understanding of the universe, to determine whether or not a supreme being (Creator) actually exists. That being the case, I find agnosticism to be the most reasonable path. To me, it seems far more likely that publications like the Bible were made simply to control the public. Just my view.

[jj-]

It's not a hard/circular argument. It's very easy. Whatever involves a change in states occurs within time. So the act of creation must occur within time. Thus, time wasn't created.

[Aeroneous]

It's not a hard/circular argument. It's very easy. Whatever involves a change in states occurs within time. So the act of creation must occur within time. Thus, time wasn't created.

Okay this time concept is getting a little mixed up.

Time is simply mankind's invention... nothing more than a measurement of motion, events, and our passage through life. To suggest that someone lives outside of time, in the sense that this concept has been being used, would suggest someone living in a static existence (or perhaps someone who can at least travel to different points in our measurement of time). Either way, it is no more faulty to say that this being required origination than it is to say that we did. Whether or not some concept like time exists in more of a fashion than just a human measurement seems to be a separate issue and nearly irrelevant.

[pcosmar]

Okay this time concept is getting a little mixed up.


Well,, that discussion needs to be moved to the religion sub forum.
This thread is about murder,,or at least manslaughter.

[Smart3]

I suppose this site doesn't have a creator either since it is vastly less complex than a human being, it must have been random chance that it came together. I am sure Josh will be amused at that thought.
No one is proposing random chance, the simple reality is that, unlike man's inventions which require man to invent and design them, there is no reason for everything else to be 'intelligently' designed.

QUOTE=Kylie;4864592]Really?
Did you just magically appear here? Breathing air? A walking, talking productive human- being.
We are created, be it by what someone wants to refer to as a "God", or by our parents.
It takes two people to create each one of us. But the work doesn't end there, unless those people decide they don't want their creation.[/QUOTE]
That's no different than creating clothes. You don't get your rights from your biological parents.


I think you're simply trolling everyone her on purpose....this is your quote:

You clearly state rights don't matter, "it's about what is best for society" - not once this entire thread have you tried to make the claim that fetuses/unborn kids don't have rights. If you're pro-choice, the only argument you can try to make is fetuses don't have rights, or the mother's right to kill whatever she put in her body is greater than the baby's right to life. But eugenicist arguments like the ones you're making in this thread are just plain sick.
It's pretty clear I'm not trolling. Been posting this on the board since Aug 2011.

[cheapseats]

Dec 2011:
Botched Penis Injection: Kasia Rivera Arrested For Manslaughter In Justin Street Death
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/botched-penis-injection-_n_1144405.html

(Curiously, reported in NewzdeZimbabwe in September 2012: Botched Penis Injection: Kasia Rivera Arrested For Manslaughter In Justin Street Death)

May 2012:
Man details personal devastation after surgery results in mutilated penis
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-details-personal-devastation-surgery-results-mutilated-penis-article-1.1080356


In the red herring quest to protect POTENTIAL LIFE, are men who electively &/or recklessly SCREW UP their reproductive capability guilty of something legal-eagle-ish like ANTICIPATORY MANSLAUGHTER? I kid...kinda.

I do NOT interject fluke penal implant stories to broach the irrational BUT BILLABLE idea of each man's obligation to PROTECT penis functionality, rather, to highlight that there are MANY accidental deaths that could be argued to KILL "The Unborn". Fuhgeddabout slippery slope, "Personhood at Conception" is a bobsled run.

Whatever. I've gone around the "reproductive rights" mulberry bush enough times to know it goes nowhere EXCEPT around and around the mulberry bush.

Not one in a thousand people change their mind on this subject. That is my in-the-flesh experience since the bullshit Iowa Caucuses that catapulted Barack Hussein Obama into superstardom, talking to random Americans while driving more than 100,000 miles in the extremely Disunited States OVER which important people fly.

That said, I find that MANY people who sincerely believe Abortion is wrong-wrong-go-to-hell-wrong are QUITE willing to remove this unsolvable philosophical debate from the public arena, leaving Free Will to the woman and spiritual consequences to God.

I've said it before AND I've repeated it. Whether the third time is a charm or a strike-out makes no nevermind to ME...I ain't the one "playing the game" of Electoral Politics. Hardright "Social Conservatism", with Abortion Hysteria front and center, COST y'all in the last election.

Separately...but NOT separately, from the standpoint of being steadily bushwhacked by Ruling Elite...I emphasize the INFREQUENCY of botched penal implant surgeries AND ALSO OF LATE-TERM ABORTIONS. Abortion Hysterics latch onto sensational BUT UNCOMMON stories in very much the same way that Officials, DoGooders and MainstreamMedia latch onto outrageous BUT UNCOMMON gun deaths.

In very much the same way that Congress legislates to the EXCEPTIONS to rules.

Getting impassioned people (including SCARED people) to wrestle one tree rather than see the forest is a SPECIALTY of the Ruling Elite.

[JK/SEA]

Karma is a nasty bitch, and in this case she came calling to collect that debt.

[Dick Chaney]

KARMA a bitch.

[pacodever]

Education statistics for foster children (those who were not wanted by their parents for one reason or another at some point):
http://www.fostercarealumni.org/resources/foster_care_facts_and_statistics.htm

Pretty poor. I know people around here don't really value our education system too much, but there's certainly a connection between a lack of education and success in life. There are plenty of exceptions, obviously.

As for crime...

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2011/05/adoption-foster-care-zill

Obviously the issue could be with foster homes, but there is a correlation. When over 50% of reported adoptions are actually relative/step-parent adoptions, that leaves roughly 10% of the annual foster care population being adopted each year. So quite a few children that are put up for adoption (not wanted by parents for some reason) end up spending significant amounts of time in foster homes which produce high rates of uneducated criminals.

It's not a perfect analysis, but you can quantify the situation to a certain extent. The stats in that last paragraph were done with some quick math pulled from childwelfare.gov


Not only is your analysis not perfect, it is very misleading. I'll address each one:

National data

1. Earned a high school diploma 54%
2. Obtained a Bachelor's degree or higher 2%
3. Became a parent 84%
4. Were unemployed 51%
5. Had no health insurance 30%
6. Had been homeless 25%
7. Were receiving public assistance 30%
8. Crime

1. High school Graduation rate for the Class of 2005 in the nation’s 50 largest cities was 53 percent. (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-22/local/36472838_1_graduation-rate-dropout-rate-asian-students)
2. The statistic for obtaining a Bachelor’s degree is based on 2.5 – 4 years after being released from foster care, so that would be exactly on their 22nd birthday, which is not a common age to have earned a bachelor's degree, especially today. (Young adults ages 18-24 years old 2.5 to 4 years after leaving foster care: Cook, R. 1992) I can’t find anything for exactly 22 years old, however, 20-24 years old is 12% and age 18-19 is as expected .3%. So I don’t see anything unusual for 22 year olds to be at 2%.
3. The parent statistic is actually near the national average.
4. The unemployment rate is based on 3 ¼ years after turning 18. Again, the national youth employment participation for that age is only around 60%.
5. Health insurance percentages for 19-25 year olds is 70% so nothing unusual there either.
6. There is not enough information for how homelessness is described in your statistic; however, the statistics I researched count a single night of homelessness as having been homeless, which is not demonstrative of chronic homelessness.
7. 49 percent of Americans lived in a household last year that received at least one direct benefit from the federal government, be it Social Security or food stamps or unemployment insurance. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/26/do-96-percent-of-americans-receive-government-benefits/)
8. The crime rate is surprising, however, not when you consider that you are placing children in an institution already full of criminals who were placed in foster homes because they were juvenile offenders. Also many States consider all "juvenile offenders in court ordered custody are in foster care by federal regulation," and counts any 24-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom the State agency has placement and care responsibility as foster care. They do this to get matching federal funding. So all juvenile criminals are considered in foster care, which would drastically skew these statistics.

So not only your statistics misleading, it actually appears that children raised under foster care are more than likely to lead normal, productive lives.

[osan]

Really?

Did you just magically appear here? Breathing air? A walking, talking productive human- being.



Actually, sort of, yes. I am a Clampettist ever since reading Redneck Manifesto. In that work, the author raises the question of whence the redneck, quipping that they had to come from somewhere and further backing his assertions by pointing out that they didn't just pop out of Jed Clampett's butt one Wednesday morning. Reading this, I was given to immediate mystical transport wherein I experienced a vision and now know that some of us have indeed just popped out of Jed Clampett's butt. So in a way, yes, some of us indeed magically appear.

You're welcome

[Aeroneous]

Not only is your analysis not perfect, it is very misleading. I'll address each one:

National data

1. Earned a high school diploma 54%
2. Obtained a Bachelor's degree or higher 2%
3. Became a parent 84%
4. Were unemployed 51%
5. Had no health insurance 30%
6. Had been homeless 25%
7. Were receiving public assistance 30%
8. Crime

1. High school Graduation rate for the Class of 2005 in the nation’s 50 largest cities was 53 percent. (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-22/local/36472838_1_graduation-rate-dropout-rate-asian-students)
2. The statistic for obtaining a Bachelor’s degree is based on 2.5 – 4 years after being released from foster care, so that would be exactly on their 22nd birthday, which is not a common age to have earned a bachelor's degree, especially today. (Young adults ages 18-24 years old 2.5 to 4 years after leaving foster care: Cook, R. 1992) I can’t find anything for exactly 22 years old, however, 20-24 years old is 12% and age 18-19 is as expected .3%. So I don’t see anything unusual for 22 year olds to be at 2%.
3. The parent statistic is actually near the national average.
4. The unemployment rate is based on 3 ¼ years after turning 18. Again, the national youth employment participation for that age is only around 60%.
5. Health insurance percentages for 19-25 year olds is 70% so nothing unusual there either.
6. There is not enough information for how homelessness is described in your statistic; however, the statistics I researched count a single night of homelessness as having been homeless, which is not demonstrative of chronic homelessness.
7. 49 percent of Americans lived in a household last year that received at least one direct benefit from the federal government, be it Social Security or food stamps or unemployment insurance. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/26/do-96-percent-of-americans-receive-government-benefits/)
8. The crime rate is surprising, however, not when you consider that you are placing children in an institution already full of criminals who were placed in foster homes because they were juvenile offenders. Also many States consider all "juvenile offenders in court ordered custody are in foster care by federal regulation," and counts any 24-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom the State agency has placement and care responsibility as foster care. They do this to get matching federal funding. So all juvenile criminals are considered in foster care, which would drastically skew these statistics.

So not only your statistics misleading, it actually appears that children raised under foster care are more than likely to lead normal, productive lives.

Ugh..

I was just trying to show that it is possible to quantify such a claim. Whether or not it was true was not really my objective. Nice counter analysis.

[klamath]

May God have mercy on her soul.

[Confederate]

May God have mercy on her soul.

And on the poor baby's as well.

[klamath]

And on the poor baby's as well.
The baby is assured, as he or she never even had time to commit any sins, about as innocent as you can get. As far as the abortionist, may God have an opportunity soon to grant mercy or not.

[Aeroneous]

And on the poor baby's as well.

And on all the people in this thread who cast judgement upon her.

[Smart3]

The baby is assured, as he or she never even had time to commit any sins, about as innocent as you can get. As far as the abortionist, may God have an opportunity soon to grant mercy or not.

If fetuses have souls, then they can sin and do sin. All have fallen short, or did you forget?

[Confederate]

If fetuses have souls, then they can sin and do sin. All have fallen short, or did you forget?

This is partly true. Our souls are stained from the moment of conception by original sin. That doesn't mean that they are condemned to Hell, though. They have no personal sin.

We do not know what happens to them though, all we can do is trust in God's infinite mercy and love and His will that all men be saved.

[LibertyEagle]

He's also murdered countless children. This guy should be executed for murder.

As much as I detest what he did, he too deserves a trial.

[Confederate]

As much as I detest what he did, he too deserves a trial.

Of course. I said that earlier.


I'm not asking for vigilante justice. I think he should be tried for murder in a fair, open, and transparent trial and hopefully be convicted by a jury and sentences to death. It's the only appropriate punishment, in my opinion, for the murder of countless innocent children.

I fully believe in the 5th Amendment:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If(when) found guilty, I think the only appropriate sentence is the death penalty.

[pcosmar]

As much as I detest what he did, he too deserves a trial.
Doctors kill people all the time,, they are very seldom ever charged.

[Confederate]

Doctors kill people all the time,, they are very seldom ever charged.

Doctors don't try to kill people. Abortionists intentionally do it for profit.

[Sola_Fide]

This is partly true. Our souls are stained from the moment of conception by original sin. That doesn't mean that they are condemned to Hell, though. They have no personal sin.

We do not know what happens to them though, all we can do is trust in God's infinite mercy and love and His will that all men be saved.

Huh? That makes no sense.

1. What is the punishment for sin if not Hell? How can you have sin on your account and not go to Hell? How is God just if He doesn't punish sin?

2. How can a fetus "make a choice" for God? If salvation is a combination of man's will and God's will, how can a fetus be saved?

3. If God is trying to do everything He can to save all people equally, what more can He do? Why "trust in His infinite mercy" if that mercy is not able to save someone without their permission? What does the grace of God do? It obviously does save men completely, so why should I trust in it?

[pcosmar]

Doctors don't try to kill people. Abortionists intentionally do it for profit.

Negligent Homicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

I understand your point though. Even if not for the child,, the death of the mother was negligence.

[Smart3]

Huh? That makes no sense.

1. What is the punishment for sin if not Hell? How can you have sin on your account and not go to Hell? How is God just if He doesn't punish sin?

2. How can a fetus "make a choice" for God? If salvation is a combination of man's will and God's will, how can a fetus be saved?

3. If God is trying to do everything He can to save all people equally, what more can He do? Why "trust in His infinite mercy" if that mercy is not able to save someone without their permission? What does the grace of God do? It obviously does save men completely, so why should I trust in it?

This would be a lot clearer if we knew who was a traducianist and who was a creationist.

If traducianism is true, then it is entirely possible that the fetus of a regenerate woman is also saved, similar to how if a Jewish pregnant woman eats unkosher food, the fetus also is unclean. So if the woman was not saved, neither is the fetus.

If on the other hand, one is a creationist (as most Christians nowadays seem to be) then it is confusing. It is likely the majority of fetuses, like the majority of humanity proper go to Hell and not Heaven.

[TER]

If on the other hand, one is a creationist (as most Christians nowadays seem to be) then it is confusing. It is likely the majority of fetuses, like the majority of humanity proper go to Hell and not Heaven.

You make two major mistakes which reveals both your knowledge and the extant of your wisdom to speak for Christianity. I'm not sure yet which you lack more of.

To address the first fallacy, Christians have always believed that God made creation from nothing. That He simply made it by His Word. We know that Word to be Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God by Whom all things were made and all things find existence. It's not only nowadays, it is how it was revealed and how it has always been believed by Christians.

The second fallacy is that you seem to think you can speak about Christian doctrine, like you are some professor in the field of Church history or Christian theology. This innocent baby who was killed while still in utero is before God's presence and will find the Kingdom on account of God's great mercy. This is what Christians have believed from the beginning and have always done so. Rather, it is you and me who should be worried about how we will be judged, who sin consciously and deliberately.

You smart3 fight to not have any kind of meaningful relationship with God and you think you can somehow speak as someone who knows God, or who believes and trusts in God? You spout inaccuracies and personal opinion above the universal and consistent witness of the Church and like the smiling man in your avatar, smugly and ignorantly mischaracterize the teachings of Christ and Who He is. Who exactly are you who can speak for what Christians believed, when you do not even pray to Christ?? If you do not pray to God, then all the knowledge you think you have means nothing in speaking for what a Christian believes. And if your defense is that you once were a Christian, then I tell you to repent of your sins and turn back to Christ and THEN you can start playing the teaching role and speaking on behalf of the Church. Until then, your word against the Word of God will fail EVERY TIME and you will find yourself in the end to have lived a lonely and meaningless existence. May God have mercy on your soul.

Why don't you start some thread about how great it is to be a 'traditional Atheist' and indeed self described 'Anti-Theist' and I promise I won't post in it. And try to speak less for what Christ taught and what the Church has testified to for 2000 years. Thank you.

[Smart3]

You make two major mistakes which reveals both your knowledge and the extant of your wisdom to speak for Christianity. I'm not sure yet which you lack more of.

To address the first fallacy, Christians have always believed that God made creation from nothing. That He simply made it by His Word. We know that Word to be Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God by Whom all things were made and all things find existence. It's not only nowadays, it is how it was revealed and how it has always been believed by Christians.

The second fallacy is that you seem to think you can speak about Christian doctrine, like you are some professor in the field of Church history or Christian theology. This innocent baby who was killed while still in utero is before God's presence and will find the Kingdom on account of God's great mercy. This is what Christians have believed from the beginning and have always done so. Rather, it is you and me who should be worried about how we will be judged, who sin consciously and deliberately.

You smart3 fight to not have any kind of meaningful relationship with God and you think you can somehow speak as someone who knows God, or who believes and trusts in God? You spout inaccuracies and personal opinion above the universal and consistent witness of the Church and like the smiling man in your avatar, smugly and ignorantly mischaracterize the teachings of Christ and Who He is. Who exactly are you who can speak for what Christians believed, when you do not even pray to Christ?? If you do not pray to God, then all the knowledge you think you have means nothing in speaking for what a Christian believes. And if your defense is that you once were a Christian, then I tell you to repent of your sins and turn back to Christ and THEN you can start playing the teaching role and speaking on behalf of the Church. Until then, your word against the Word of God will fail EVERY TIME and you will find yourself in the end to have lived a lonely and meaningless existence. May God have mercy on your soul.

Why don't you start some thread about how great it is to be a 'traditional Atheist' and indeed self described 'Anti-Theist' and I promise I won't post in it. And try to speak less for what Christ taught and what the Church has testified to for 2000 years. Thank you.
I was concerned this would happen. You assumed creationist meant Creationism, and not the origin of souls. The debate on souls goes back to the earliest days of Christianity - the two competing camps are Traducianism and Creationism. In my previous post I tried to use them to rationalize the situation (fetuses sinning) without giving my personal view.

If I failed to be objective then I am open to correction from Sola Fide and Confederate, who I was responding to and I apologize if I made a mistake.

I don't need (or want) to create a thread for non-theists as this forum is called religion and thus all threads open to all religions and those without one. If you don't think non-Christians should be able to post on Christian matters then please ignore my posts and those of everyone else who constantly post on this forum and yet do not believe a Galilean primitive died for our sins.

However, I reckon you'll continue reading my posts because it gives you great pleasure to insult and attack me, although I would never do the same to you. Tolerance is not a Christian virtue.

edit - the forum is actually general politics not religion, which means I am even more so in the right to post on these matters. I forgot because your post was so overtly religious I thought this topic was now in religion.

[TER]

I was concerned this would happen. You assumed creationist meant Creationism, and not the origin of souls. The debate on souls goes back to the earliest days of Christianity - the two competing camps are Traducianism and Creationism. In my previous post I tried to use them to rationalize the situation (fetuses sinning) without giving my personal view.

If I failed to be objective then I am open to correction from Sola Fide and Confederate, who I was responding to and I apologize if I made a mistake.

I don't need (or want) to create a thread for non-theists as this forum is called religion and thus all threads open to all religions and those without one. If you don't think non-Christians should be able to post on Christian matters then please ignore my posts and those of everyone else who constantly post on this forum and yet do not believe a Galilean primitive died for our sins.

However, I reckon you'll continue reading my posts because it gives you great pleasure to insult and attack me, although I would never do the same to.

Ah, but if it only gave me pleasure instead of the pain to do so.

The debate you are talking about was resolved and the true and original teaching was maintained. You seem to like to pick the side opposite of the Church and speak very eloquently your anti-theism. Is your goal to correct Christians and teach them about morality? When at least I admit I am a sinner and a most wretched one at that. I am not asking you to leave the threads, but ask that you speak a little less about what Christians believe since you are not one. So that being a plumber you are not giving electrical advice nor answering how the universe was created.

[Smart3]

Ah, but if it only gave me pleasure instead of the pain to do so.

The debate you are talking about was resolved and the true and original teaching was maintained. You seem to like to pick the side opposite of the Church and speak very eloquently your anti-theism. Is your goal to correct Christians and teach them about morality? When at least I admit I am a sinner and a most wretched one at that. I am not asking you to leave the threads, but ask that you speak a little less about what Christians believe since you are not one. So that being a plumber you are not giving electrical advice nor answering how the universe was created.

Not sure how that makes sense. A lifelong student of Christianity who was raised Christian can't speak on Christianity because he doesn't at the present time pray?

What is "the Church" you speak of? the body of Christ or Rome? Everything is open to debate except the divinity of Jesus and if you don't think so, then you have not read the Church Fathers and Reformers.

[pacodever]

Ugh..

I was just trying to show that it is possible to quantify such a claim. Whether or not it was true was not really my objective. Nice counter analysis.

I know. I just get annoyed how much faith people put in bullshit statistics. People with agendas will misconstrue anything to support their case. Their statistics are almost never true or are partial truths when you really examine them. Most of the time they completely ignore the actual cause or fail to do any critical analysis of the factors that led to whatever problem they are illustrating with their statistics in favor of the much easier, emotional effect it will have on the masses, thereby furthering their agenda more efficiently.

Not saying that was your intention, but I try to do my own research because of how pervasive the dishonesty is. I mean, you can't even trust a non-profit Foster Care Alumni organization with even the best intentions.

[TER]

I forgot because your post was so overtly religious I thought this topic was now in religion.

You must have forgotten because you were too busy posting your Atheism.



We don't have a creator.


Conception is the beginning of a 9-month process to create a human being.


You're damn right I do. Our rights are innate, without a Creator or government granting them.

Children who were not wanted by their mother very rarely become anything special, and usually become criminals. So as part of crime prevention, they should be aborted.

This type of thinking is foreign to anyone who has understood what Ron Paul has written and professed, and you are in a forum which supports and defends certain truths, the role of God in our lives and the sanctity of life being two of them.

You ask what is the importance of prayer, and you still don't understand why you cannot call yourself some authority or speak to what a Christian believes? 'A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian'. Theology is not a degree in University, it is a way of life and of sanctification and deification by the Holy Spirit through prayer and communion with God, whereby God reveals Himself and grants peace and truths beyond human understanding or comprehension.

And your comments about the debates regarding christological and soteriological issues were the reasons why councils eventually needed to be created in order for the truth to be proclaimed. And the truth has been proclaimed undefiled and unchanged even when so many fought against it, and this alone bears testimony to the grace of the Church.

[Smart3]

You must have forgotten because you were too busy posting your Atheism.

This type of thinking is foreign to anyone who has understood what Ron Paul has written and professed, and you are in a forum which supports and defends certain truths, the role of God in our lives and the sanctity of life being two of them.

You ask what is the importance of prayer, and you still don't understand why you cannot call yourself some authority or speak to what a Christian believes and lives their whole life for? 'A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian'. Theology is not a degree in University, it is a way of life and of sanctification and deification by the Holy Spirit through prayer and communion with God, whereby God reveals Himself and grants peace and truths beyond human understanding or comprehension.

And your comments about the debates regarding christological and soteriological issues were the reasons why councils eventually needed to be created in order for the truth to be proclaimed. And the truth has been proclaimed undefiled and unchanged even when so many fought against it, and this alone bears testimony to the grace of the Church.

Yeah, because all Ron Paul supporters must share his religious views. Seriously?

Your answer to the debates issue confirms you are a Catholic of some kind, as those Councils are about as authoritative as this conversation right now to most Protestants.

None of the things I said were Atheist btw, just not Christian.

[TER]

Yeah, because all Ron Paul supporters must share his religious views. Seriously?

No, just respect them and stop spreading misleading lies as if you are someone with authority on Christianity when you are neither Christian nor one who prays to God.

[Smart3]

No, just respect them and stop spreading misleading lies as if you are someone with authority on Christianity when you are neither Christian nor one who prays to God.

Ron Paul does not post on this site. While I find his religious beliefs hysterical, I do tolerate them and wouldn't insult him over it. He's free to believe whatever he wishes, just like everyone else.

[TER]

Ron Paul does not post on this site. While I find his religious beliefs hysterical, I do tolerate them and wouldn't insult him over it. He's free to believe whatever he wishes, just like everyone else.

Thank you for tolerating Ron Paul (and the majority of people here) for their hysterical religious beliefs. That is very kind of you.

Also, everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, just don't make yourself to be some authority or source of knowledge about things you know little about. Because when you do so, you often lie and I don't want you to be a liar.

[Smart3]

Thank you for tolerating Ron Paul (and the majority of people here) for their hysterical religious beliefs. That is very kind of you.

Also, everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, just don't make yourself to be some authority or source of knowledge about things you know little about. Because when you do so, you often lie and I don't want you to be a liar.
I am only a student of Christianity, like everyone here. My vast knowledge does not grant me expert status, yet.

[TER]

I am only a student of Christianity, like everyone here. My vast knowledge does not grant me expert status, yet.

A student follows his Master. You instead call Him a Galilean primitive. Your knowledge is not very vast.

[Sola_Fide]

Ron Paul does not post on this site. While I find his religious beliefs hysterical, I do tolerate them and wouldn't insult him over it. He's free to believe whatever he wishes, just like everyone else.

Well, in all fairness, we have to take a look at the ridiculousness of what Ayn Rand is saying. Saying that bags of atoms that are randomly moving through space have "innate rights" is utterly ridiculous. Innate rights and bunches of atoms randomly moving through space when acted on by the forces of the universe do not make sense together. One does not follow from the other.

You can say "well, we have meaning and rights because we chose to give ourselves rights", but then you are right back to the arbitrariness and subjectivism that leads to statism and the erasing of any notion of rights. Thank God Ron Paul has a firm, objective foundation for rights. Ayn Rand's worldview cannot sustain a free society. It will always lead to tyranny.

But keep in mind I come at this question differently than Confederate or TER. They believe authority comes from men in robes. I believe authority comes only from Jesus Christ, the Name above all names.

[TER]

But keep in mind I come at this question differently than Confederate or TER. They believe authority comes from men in robes. I believe authority comes only from Jesus Christ, the Name above all names.

Actually, the Church has always believed that authority comes from God alone and He has granted authority to those whom He has ordained. This is Scriptural. It is you rather who has made your own mind's interpretation of Scripture to be some ultimate authority (which by the way, is decidedly not Scriptural) and put your own self above His Body (which is indeed anti-christian). But we have discussed this before many times (me and you) and to no avail as you still make the mistake in saying that I believe authority comes from men in robes when it is God's grace in the them which gives them any authority at all (you know, that thing called the Holy Spirit in the world which you profess to worship as God?)

So to make it clear for you so that you can stop from making similar misleading lies in the future (which you have done in the past), Christians (myself being one of them) believe that authority comes only from God and that any authority a person has over me has been given by God (either for my instruction or edification). This too is Scriptural. And indeed, those same Scriptures speak about men in long robes in the days of the Patriarchs and Prophets, those men who spoke for God and taught with authority, and about ordained Kings and Priests of Israel in the Old Testament, and about Bishops and Priests being ordained by the Holy Spirit in the laying of the hands of men (whether in long robes or not), men who were chosen to tend His sheep and teach and instruct the faithful lest they in their sinfulness made idols in and of their own minds and things in the world. But of course, you will ignore all of this because it does not compute with your own mind's interpretation of the Scriptures and try to re-define what the Apostle meant regarding the communion of believers, the Church, as the Body of Christ empowered by the Holy Spirit (the very stated reason Christ said He came into the world to accomplish). You lack the first 1500+ years of Christianity and ignore the historical witness, teachings, and traditions of the Church from the beginning so that the only authority you would have is what your own mind believes to be correct. With that, I have nothing further to say in this thread. I have spoken too much already and should not have logged in at all tonight but kept my mouth shut. May God have mercy upon the souls of this baby and mother and upon all us sinners.

[Neil Desmond]

Thank you for tolerating Ron Paul (and the majority of people here) for their hysterical religious beliefs.
What are the religious beliefs of the majority of people here? How do you know what they are? Was a survey taken (one that I missed) or is one taken occasionally? I'm curious - please enlighten me about how you arrived at that conclusion.

[pcosmar]

Was a survey taken (one that I missed) or is one taken occasionally? I'm curious - please enlighten me about how you arrived at that conclusion.

Yes, several in fact. And yes,, though several faiths are represented here the majority claim some flavor of Christianity.

[Neil Desmond]

Yes, several in fact. And yes,, though several faiths are represented here the majority claim some flavor of Christianity.
Alright, where can I find one? Would you please provide a link or something?

[osan]

Yes, several in fact. And yes,, though several faiths are represented here the majority claim some flavor of Christianity.

OK, but identifying as "christian" is like identifying as "human" - it tells us vanishingly little about one. Put 100 Christians in a room and I guarantee you will have at least 101 different definitions of what it means to be one.

The whole religion deal is one of the grander examples of rolling LABEL FAIL. It started long ago and has not let up a whit in all human history. Rather, it has spread like a cancer across the face of the earth, carried as a plague with the mind of Empire.

Until we get our houses of perception and thought into good order we as a species will continue the trot down this highway of doom, and as technologies advance the trot breaks into a full gallop. Welcome to the 21st century my pals. At this rate we will not have a 22nd, save perhaps as cavemen back up in the twigs trying to out-wait the large cats and other predators below, circling - the buzzards never too far off.

[Nirvikalpa]

First couple of posts on this thread: She deserved to die, doctor deserves to die.

Yeah... no.

[itshappening]

The founders didn't seem to take a position on abortion. Jefferson actually admired it in the native Indians as part of their culture. However, there was a case in Connecticut in 1742 where they charged the doctor for killing the mother after a bungled abortion. It doesn't say what happened to him.


-
The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America
Few issues arouse as much passion as abortion. This has not always been the case, however. Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy. Recipes for herbal potions including pennyroyal, savin and other plants capable of “bringing on the menses” were common in home medical guides of the period.

Our founding fathers actually wrote about the subject. Benjamin Franklin’s views can be inferred from an incident that occurred in 1729 when his former employer, newspaper editor Samuel Keimer of Philadelphia, published an encyclopedia whose very first volume included a detailed article on abortion, including directions for ending an unwanted pregnancy (“immoderate Evacuations, violent Motions, sudden Passions, Frights … violent Purgatives and in the general anything that tends to promote the Menses.”) Hoping to found his own newspaper to compete with Keimer, Franklin responded in print through the satiric voices of two fictional characters, “Celia Shortface” and “Martha Careful” who expressed mock outrage at Keimer for exposing “the secrets of our sex” which ought to be reserved “for the repository of the learned.” One of the aggrieved ladies threatened to grab Keimer’s beard and pull it if she spotted him at the tavern! Neither Franklin nor his prudish protagonists objected to abortion per se, but only to the immodesty of discussing such feminine mysteries in public.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a well known physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, shared his views of the subject matter-of-factly in his book of Medical Inquiries and Observations (1805). Discussing blood-letting as a possible treatment to prevent miscarriage during the third month of pregnancy, when he believed there was a special tendency to spontaneous abortion, Rush asked the question, “what is an abortion but a haemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?” A hemoptysis is the clinical term for the expectoration of blood or bloody sputum from the lungs or larynx. In Rush’s mind, apparently, what we would now call the three-month-old embryo was equivalent medically to what one might cough up when ill with the flu.

Thomas Jefferson put no moral judgment on abortion, either. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he observed that for Native American women, who accompanied their men in war and hunting parties, “childbearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said, therefore, that they have learnt the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable, and that it even extends to prevent conception for some time after.” Jefferson on the whole admired the native people and the Notes were intended in part to counter the views of the French naturalist Buffon, who accused the indigenous inhabitants of the New World of being degenerate and less virile than their European counterparts. In extenuation, Jefferson cites “voluntary abortion” along with the hazards of the wilderness and famine as obstacles nature has placed in the way of increased multiplication among the natives. Indian women married to white traders, he observes, produce abundant children and are excellent mothers. The fact that they practice birth control and when necessary terminate their pregnancies does not lessen his respect for them, but appears to be in his mind simply one of the ingenious ways they have adapted to their challenging environment.

A different window into colonial attitudes toward abortion can be found in Corenlia Hughes Dayton’s “Taking the Trade: Abortion and Gender Relations in an Eighteenth Century New England Village.” In her 1991 monograph which appeared in the William and Mary Quarterly, Dayton examined a case from 1742 that occurred in the village of Pomfret, Connecticut, where 19-year-old Sarah Grosvenor died in a bungled abortion urged on her by her 27-year-old lover Amasa Sessions. Magistrates filed charges against both Sessions and the “doctor of physick” who mangled the operation, but Dayton points out the legal complaints were not for performing the abortion as such (which was legal) but for killing the mother. The whole episode was surrounded with a hush of secrecy, in an era when “fornication” was not only illegal but culturally taboo. Abortion, in the colonial context, carried a stigma of shame not because it ended the life of a fetus but because it was associated with illicit intercourse—helping to explain the outrage of Franklin’s two characters Celia Shortface and Martha Careful when their private remedies for ending a pregnancy receive a public airing.

What can we learn from examining attitudes toward abortion in early America? Perhaps only this, that positions which seem to both the pro-choice and pro-life camps to be eternal and absolute have in fact evolved over time. An historic perspective should teach us humility if nothing else.

http://americancreation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html

[pcosmar]

Alright, where can I find one? Would you please provide a link or something?

There have been many, and folks have joined,others left,, and not everyone voted,,but it is a reference.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?200922-New-Demographics-List-of-All&highlight=demographics

[pcosmar]

The founders didn't seem to take a position on abortion. Jefferson actually admired it in the native Indians as part of their culture. However, there was a case in Connecticut in 1742 where they charged the doctor for killing the mother after a bungled abortion. It doesn't say what happened to him.


That may be the ONE case I found when looking. I could find no cases of a mother ever being charged,, despite the rhetoric to the contrary.
The fact is,, it had never really been prosecuted.
It was simply not acceptable.

[Neil Desmond]

There have been many, and folks have joined,others left,, and not everyone voted,,but it is a reference.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?200922-New-Demographics-List-of-All&highlight=demographics
Thanks & that's pretty good actually - even shows trends. Ok, so Christianity used to be the majority belief, but "non-religious" has been increasing and has now overtaken Christianity as the majority "belief" (if you want to call it that).

[jonhowe]

Why did she get one so late? if it was not to save her life, then she deserved to die.

Your callousness in this thread is appalling. Carl Sagan would be embarrassed to see you use his photo.

[Confederate]

First couple of posts on this thread: She deserved to die, doctor deserves to die.

Yeah... no.

What doctor? A doctor is someone who practices medicine, which is concerned with promoting, maintaining or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, injury, and other physical and mental impairments.

Pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or impairment.

An abortionist is not a doctor, he is a murderer.

[Nirvikalpa]

What doctor? A doctor is someone who practices medicine, which is concerned with promoting, maintaining or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, injury, and other physical and mental impairments.

Pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or impairment.

An abortionist is not a doctor, he is a murderer.

Idiotic statement is idiotic.

A doctor is someone with a Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O) in this country. He was indeed a doctor.

Abortion (at that week) is a surgery. Surgeons are doctors.

Because the surgery does not fit within your moral compass does not make his degree or training any less.

------

That said, do murderers also deserve to die? How is that acceptable being "pro-life?"

[Neil Desmond]

The founders didn't seem to take a position on abortion. Jefferson actually admired it in the native Indians as part of their culture. However, there was a case in Connecticut in 1742 where they charged the doctor for killing the mother after a bungled abortion. It doesn't say what happened to him.


-
The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America
Few issues arouse as much passion as abortion. This has not always been the case, however. Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy. Recipes for herbal potions including pennyroyal, savin and other plants capable of “bringing on the menses” were common in home medical guides of the period.

Our founding fathers actually wrote about the subject. Benjamin Franklin’s views can be inferred from an incident that occurred in 1729 when his former employer, newspaper editor Samuel Keimer of Philadelphia, published an encyclopedia whose very first volume included a detailed article on abortion, including directions for ending an unwanted pregnancy (“immoderate Evacuations, violent Motions, sudden Passions, Frights … violent Purgatives and in the general anything that tends to promote the Menses.”) Hoping to found his own newspaper to compete with Keimer, Franklin responded in print through the satiric voices of two fictional characters, “Celia Shortface” and “Martha Careful” who expressed mock outrage at Keimer for exposing “the secrets of our sex” which ought to be reserved “for the repository of the learned.” One of the aggrieved ladies threatened to grab Keimer’s beard and pull it if she spotted him at the tavern! Neither Franklin nor his prudish protagonists objected to abortion per se, but only to the immodesty of discussing such feminine mysteries in public.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a well known physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, shared his views of the subject matter-of-factly in his book of Medical Inquiries and Observations (1805). Discussing blood-letting as a possible treatment to prevent miscarriage during the third month of pregnancy, when he believed there was a special tendency to spontaneous abortion, Rush asked the question, “what is an abortion but a haemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?” A hemoptysis is the clinical term for the expectoration of blood or bloody sputum from the lungs or larynx. In Rush’s mind, apparently, what we would now call the three-month-old embryo was equivalent medically to what one might cough up when ill with the flu.

Thomas Jefferson put no moral judgment on abortion, either. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he observed that for Native American women, who accompanied their men in war and hunting parties, “childbearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said, therefore, that they have learnt the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable, and that it even extends to prevent conception for some time after.” Jefferson on the whole admired the native people and the Notes were intended in part to counter the views of the French naturalist Buffon, who accused the indigenous inhabitants of the New World of being degenerate and less virile than their European counterparts. In extenuation, Jefferson cites “voluntary abortion” along with the hazards of the wilderness and famine as obstacles nature has placed in the way of increased multiplication among the natives. Indian women married to white traders, he observes, produce abundant children and are excellent mothers. The fact that they practice birth control and when necessary terminate their pregnancies does not lessen his respect for them, but appears to be in his mind simply one of the ingenious ways they have adapted to their challenging environment.

A different window into colonial attitudes toward abortion can be found in Corenlia Hughes Dayton’s “Taking the Trade: Abortion and Gender Relations in an Eighteenth Century New England Village.” In her 1991 monograph which appeared in the William and Mary Quarterly, Dayton examined a case from 1742 that occurred in the village of Pomfret, Connecticut, where 19-year-old Sarah Grosvenor died in a bungled abortion urged on her by her 27-year-old lover Amasa Sessions. Magistrates filed charges against both Sessions and the “doctor of physick” who mangled the operation, but Dayton points out the legal complaints were not for performing the abortion as such (which was legal) but for killing the mother. The whole episode was surrounded with a hush of secrecy, in an era when “fornication” was not only illegal but culturally taboo. Abortion, in the colonial context, carried a stigma of shame not because it ended the life of a fetus but because it was associated with illicit intercourse—helping to explain the outrage of Franklin’s two characters Celia Shortface and Martha Careful when their private remedies for ending a pregnancy receive a public airing.

What can we learn from examining attitudes toward abortion in early America? Perhaps only this, that positions which seem to both the pro-choice and pro-life camps to be eternal and absolute have in fact evolved over time. An historic perspective should teach us humility if nothing else.

http://americancreation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html
They also owned slaves and women didn't have the right to vote or run for office, but these days we don't allow anyone to own slaves, and women can vote & run for office (and have held office too).

I didn't know that there were techniques such as using roots and herbs that could induce "abortion." I also found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561
This may have somewhat "altered" my own position on "abortion", but it's not really an abortion to me, more like a "natural" miscarriage. I guess what I really have a problem with is the idea of someone inconsiderately and ruthlessly digging around down there in a woman's body to "perform an abortion" by ripping or tearing out an unborn child and killing it in the process or leaving it for dead. If a woman is merely consuming something, on the other hand (I don't believe that the right of people to consume whatever they want ought to be interfered with), and a miscarriage just happens to occur as a result of what she consumes, oh well that's too bad - although if a woman wants to avoid a miscarriage it would be prudent for her to mind what she consumes, etc. (just like avoiding smoking, alcohol, etc. to avoid harming the child).

[Neil Desmond]

Idiotic statement is idiotic.

A doctor is someone with a Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O) in this country. He was indeed a doctor.

Abortion (at that week) is a surgery. Surgeons are doctors.

Because the surgery does not fit within your moral compass does not make his degree or training any less.

------

That said, do murderers also deserve to die? How is that acceptable being "pro-life?"
Well it's more of a procedure than "surgery" per se (as in it's not an "under the knife" procedure), but that's just semantics I suppose.

There are ways abortions can be administered that don't require a surgeon, MD, etc. & there are even some things that a pregnant woman can do herself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/at-home-abortion-kit

Regarding a murderer deserving to die (BTW, killing an unborn child isn't murder to me, but I would consider it manslaughter) and "pro-life", one can hold both positions that a murderer "deserves to die" and be "pro-life" at the same time, because the issue or criteria is whether a person in question is innocent of committing murder or not.

[Confederate]

Regarding a murderer deserving to die (BTW, killing an unborn child isn't murder to me, but I would consider it manslaughter) and "pro-life", one can hold both positions that a murderer "deserves to die" and be "pro-life" at the same time, because the issue or criteria is whether a person in question is innocent of committing murder or not.

The true pro-life position is also pro-death penalty.

The point of being pro-life is that we put the same high value of all life that God does, from the earliest pre-born baby to the last breath of an elderly, dying person. We derive our high value of life from the fact that every human being is made in the image of God. Thus, when someone takes the life of another in murder, they are treating the person they murdered as less important and valuable than they are. God instituted the death penalty Himself after the flood when He said, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." (Gen. 9:6)

The reason the death penalty is pro-life is that it puts the highest possible value on the life of the person murdered by exacting the life of the person who violated that value by murdering.

[Nirvikalpa]

Well it's more of a procedure than "surgery" per se (as in it's not an "under the knife" procedure), but that's just semantics I suppose.

There are ways abortions can be administered that don't require a surgeon, MD, etc. & there are even some things that a pregnant woman can do herself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/at-home-abortion-kit

Regarding a murderer deserving to die (BTW, killing an unborn child isn't murder to me, but I would consider it manslaughter) and "pro-life", one can hold both positions that a murderer "deserves to die" and be "pro-life" at the same time, because the issue or criteria is whether a person in question is innocent of committing murder or not.

It's considered a "surgery," in the medical realms if you're seeing a doctor at 33 weeks to perform an abortion... anything else is semantics. It's called "surgical abortion" for a reason.

No shit there are ways an abortion can be self-induced. :lol: Hence why I said at that week...

Pretty schooled in home abortions, pills, herbs, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancies, problems in utero, etc all related to birth/pregnancy... as an EMT and reproductive biologist ;)

At 33 wks her cervix would have had to be dilated, been under anesthesia.... = "surgery".

My "pro-life" comment was directed at Eduardo.

[jtstellar]

poor baby, could be a future einstein there. her mother has already been proven not.

[jay_dub]

The woman that died has been identified and also it has been disclosed that the baby was suffering from fetal anomalies.


http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/10/young-woman-who-died-from-botched-33-week-abortion-identified/

[Nirvikalpa]

The woman that died has been identified and also it has been disclosed that the baby was suffering from fetal anomalies.


http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/10/young-woman-who-died-from-botched-33-week-abortion-identified/

Very, very sad.

[jay_dub]

Very, very sad.

I think so, too, but am torn about this.

Just going by what I've read, most abnormalities can be detected in the 2nd trimester. If her decision was based on that, I wonder why she didn't know sooner.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some info on ultrasound:

A carefully performed second trimester ultrasound can provide more information than any other single ultrasound.

Determine gestational age and confirm normal fetal growth.
Detect major fetal anomalies or, more commonly, confirm normal fetal development. A detailed fetal anatomic survey might be considered the "baby's first physical exam" because it is performed much like a physical exam, from "head to toe". It can actually detect some types of abnormalities that would not be suspected by the usual physical exam after birth, although many other birth defects- usually minor- will be detected by the physical exam after birth but not the ultrasound survey. A carefully performed second trimester sonogram can detect the majority of important birth defects including defects associated with normal chromosomes which would not be detected by amniocentesis.

The third trimester is the best time for evaluating fetal growth, since fetuses add most of their weight during the second half of pregnancy. Third trimester ultrasound can also evaluate amniotic fluid, blood flow through Doppler studies, the cervix, placenta, and fetal activity. It is not a good time for fetal screening but is an important time for following and clarifying suspected abnormalities.

http://www.fetalscreening.com/ultrasound.php

[Ranger29860]

The woman that died has been identified and also it has been disclosed that the baby was suffering from fetal anomalies.


http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/10/young-woman-who-died-from-botched-33-week-abortion-identified/

And that is why you wait before you start screaming "she deserved to die"

[Confederate]

The woman that died has been identified and also it has been disclosed that the baby was suffering from fetal anomalies.


http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/10/young-woman-who-died-from-botched-33-week-abortion-identified/

Oh so I guess that makes it all ok. The baby wasn't 'normal' so I guess it deserved to die.

[TywinLannister]

The woman that died has been identified and also it has been disclosed that the baby was suffering from fetal anomalies.


http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/10/young-woman-who-died-from-botched-33-week-abortion-identified/

Well that makes it perfectly alright, god forbid you have a child who is born with problems who will need special care. That would be just SO inconvenient.

[jay_dub]

I wasn't posting to justify this abortion, only to offer some more info.

[Nirvikalpa]

Well that makes it perfectly alright, god forbid you have a child who is born with problems who will need special care. That would be just SO inconvenient.

Comments like these are usually made by those who have no idea how life-changing a child needing special care is...

1) No one knows the health of the mother. Perhaps she could not dedicate her life to raising an unhealthy child.
2) No one knows the "anomalies" the child had. Try living with yourself after having a Trisomy 13 child (google it), or Edwards syndrome (Trisomy 18). I don't judge couples, especially women, for deciding to abort an unhealthy child. If faced with the news one day that my child would only live for a year in suffering, hooked up to numerous machines, and not be able to hold or bond with my baby much... I would probably do so myself. I know many pro-life people who would be destroyed emotionally seeing their baby live like that, too.

That said, I am not making excuses for the woman who did this. No one really knows her story, and no one will because she is dead. I'm not speaking ill of the dead.

I just can't sit here and pretend to be a know-all on how personal and emotional a decision like this must be for a couple. It's not a light decision at all, and the fact some posts here are making "light" of this situation, pointing fingers, etc isn't right IMHO.

[TER]

Does anyone here advocate for the termination of live infants when testing comes back a few days after their birth that there is a serious medical problem?

If the answer is no, then it makes no difference if the infant is growing in the womb. Both is murder.

[erowe1]

Comments like these are usually made by those who have no idea how life-changing a child needing special care is...

1) No one knows the health of the mother. Perhaps she could not dedicate her life to raising an unhealthy child.
2) No one knows the "anomalies" the child had. Try living with yourself after having a Trisomy 13 child (google it), or Edwards syndrome (Trisomy 18). I don't judge couples, especially women, for deciding to abort an unhealthy child. If faced with the news one day that my child would only live for a year in suffering, hooked up to numerous machines, and not be able to hold or bond with my baby much... I would probably do so myself. I know many pro-life people who would be destroyed emotionally seeing their baby live like that, too.

That said, I am not making excuses for the woman who did this. No one really knows her story, and no one will because she is dead. I'm not speaking ill of the dead.

I just can't sit here and pretend to be a know-all on how personal and emotional a decision like this must be for a couple. It's not a light decision at all, and the fact some posts here are making "light" of this situation, pointing fingers, etc isn't right IMHO.

I think she kind of jumped the gun. What she should have done, and what would have been much safer, would have been to go ahead and give birth, and then see what taking care of the baby is like. And if it turned out to be too hard, she could just leave it somewhere in the woods or something.

[Ranger29860]

Does anyone here advocate for the termination of live infants when testing comes back a few days after their birth that there is a serious medical problem?

If the answer is no, then it makes no difference if the infant is growing in the womb. Both is murder.

I like how people are ignoring all the possible meanings of fetal anomaly. Some of which can be so sever that once out of the womb the baby dies within hours or days. But lets let an infant that comes out missing its skin or organs on the outside so that they can suffer more before they inevitably pass away.

BTW we as humans already make that kind of decision for others when we pull their plugs from life support in order to let them die. Yeah science could keep that person or an infant alive for a extended time but the quality of life associated with that has to be taken into consideration.

[Confederate]

Comments like these are usually made by those who have no idea how life-changing a child needing special care is...

That does not change the morality of abortion. Murder is always immoral, regardless of whether the child is perfectly healthy or not.

My step-sister has a severe disability. She's almost 18 yet has the mental capacity of a 1 year old infant. Of course it has been hard on her mom and dad (it even contributed to their divorce) but that does not mean she is any less of a person or does not have the exact same right to life that a healthy child has.

To say that aborting a disabled child is ok destroys the entire notion of rights. Rights are not subjective, they are not relative. We either have a right to life or we do not. There is no middle ground.

[Confederate]

I like how people are ignoring all the possible meanings of fetal anomaly. Some of which can be so sever that once out of the womb the baby dies within hours or days.

It is not your choice to make to decide when the baby lives or dies.

[TER]

I like how people are ignoring all the possible meanings of fetal anomaly. Some of which can be so sever that once out of the womb the baby dies within hours or days. But lets let an infant that comes out missing its skin or organs on the outside so that they can suffer more before they inevitably pass away.

BTW we as humans already make that kind of decision for others when we pull their plugs from life support in order to let them die. Yeah science could keep that person or an infant alive for a extended time but the quality of life associated with that has to be taken into consideration.

Is it the word 'murder' that bothers you? Would you rather it be 'killing'?

I don't think I am ignoring all the possible meanings of fetal anomaly. There is indeed a point at which I would put a suffering and dying newborn infant of mine into God's hands and withhold all medical treatment.

The problem is that abortion is not putting anything into God's hands but rather putting our will above His.

[Ranger29860]

It is not your choice to make to decide when the baby lives or dies.

If I was the mother and the baby was still in my womb and there was a medical danger to me, I sure as hell would have the right to make that decision. It becomes a little murkier when the baby poses no medical risk to the mother but is severely deformed and will die on its own. But then that becomes the choice of the parents on what to do, not you, me or the government. Now if its healthy and can survive on its own even before 9 months then I would go with what someone was talking about earl in regards to looking at it like and eviction where you can't immediately force a human out.

This is all about late term abortions thought, I am not gonna get in the minefield that is early abortion.

[Ranger29860]

Is it the word 'murder' that bothers you? Would you rather it be 'killing'?

I don't think I am ignoring all the possible meanings of fetal anomaly. There is indeed a point at which I would put a suffering and dying newborn infant of mine into God's hands and withhold all medical treatment.

The problem is that abortion is not putting anything into God's hands but rather putting our will above His.

So would you make laws banning abortions on the idea that it takes the power out of gods hands? If not is there a way to justify such a law without religious influence? Or are we just talking about personal views here? Because if that's the case I have no problem with personal beliefs based on you religion as long as you do not try to pass laws based on it.

[erowe1]

If not is there a way to justify such a law without religious influence?

There is no such thing as a law without religious influence. And if you're against a law, that is also due to religious influence.

[TER]

So would you make laws banning abortions on the idea that it takes the power out of gods hands?

No, on the idea that it is murder, since some hate God and don't understand His power.


If not is there a way to justify such a law without religious influence?

Would you rather me base my morals on philosophy? Fine. My philosophy is that abortion is murder.


Or are we just talking about personal views here? Because if that's the case I have no problem with personal beliefs based on you religion as long as you do not try to pass laws based on it.

I live in a Constitutional Republic. If an amendment was put up for a vote to make abortion illegal, I would vote for it. If you don't want to, then I guess we'll have to deal with whatever the majority has decided. Until then, my belief (be it religious/philosophical or whatever you want to call it) remains the same.

[asurfaholic]

Im not saying she derserved to die, because i dont feel any human has the right to decide such a thing about another human....

But you reap what you sow. She murdered her own baby.

[Danke]

I think the true loss is for the children of her kindergarten classes.



Think of the great show and tells they could have had.

[TywinLannister]

If I was the mother and the baby was still in my womb and there was a medical danger to me, I sure as hell would have the right to make that decision. It becomes a little murkier when the baby poses no medical risk to the mother but is severely deformed and will die on its own. But then that becomes the choice of the parents on what to do, not you, me or the government. Now if its healthy and can survive on its own even before 9 months then I would go with what someone was talking about earl in regards to looking at it like and eviction where you can't immediately force a human out.

This is all about late term abortions thought, I am not gonna get in the minefield that is early abortion.

I am not opposed to allowing abortion before viability, although it is still a sad thing. After viability, in my mind the mother has essentially ratified the child's presence, and does not have a right to take any action to terminate that life, unless the child becomes a threat to her own life, in which case it is always your natural right to defend your life, by killing if necessary.

[jtstellar]

ill save this for another day

[Smart3]

Does anyone here advocate for the termination of live infants when testing comes back a few days after their birth that there is a serious medical problem?

If the answer is no, then it makes no difference if the infant is growing in the womb. Both is murder.

Define "serious"? Will it cost the parent(s) $100,000-millions to keep the infant alive? Will the infant die anyways in the first year? Then I might be ok with euthanasia in that case. No sense in preserving the life of a doomed infant anymore than a doomed fetus.

*prepared for outrage from social conservatives*

[bolil]

Define "serious"? Will it cost the parent(s) $100,000-millions to keep the infant alive? Will the infant die anyways in the first year? Then I might be ok with euthanasia in that case. No sense in preserving the life of a doomed infant anymore than a doomed fetus.

*prepared for outrage from social conservatives*

hundreds of millions! Holy cow! So it costs hundreds of millions to keep the child alive, and this is grounds for murder. Where does that leave the poor?

[Smart3]

hundreds of millions! Holy cow! So it costs hundreds of millions to keep the child alive, and this is grounds for murder. Where does that leave the poor?

I was trying to say "hundreds of thousands or millions"

Poor people shouldn't have kids in the first place. End your poverty first.

[bolil]

I was trying to say "hundreds of thousands or millions"

Poor people shouldn't have kids in the first place. End your poverty first.

And how to you propose they are kept from copulating? Sterilization?

I appreciate your honesty as regards child slaying.

I am poor, keep your hands off my dick or Ill stick another kind of prick in your mouth. Get it?

[Confederate]

And how to you propose they are kept from copulating? Sterilization?

He'd probably be in favor of that. He's already basically said rights don't matter if something is for the greater good. He's in favor of abortion as a "crime reduction strategy" and since poor people are generally viewed as more likely to commit crime he probably is in favor of aborting and sterilizing the working classes. For the good of society, of course.