Babykillers Hate Looking at Dead Babies

[VivisMom]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x6103

Omaha Steve   (1000+ posts)            Sun Mar-30-08 09:34 AM
Original message
New tatic may trump free speech on signs with fetus photos
   

This tactic will be discussed at an national reproductive rights gathering starting Friday.

More on this as it develops over the next couple weeks.

Ah, yes. Free speech for me, but not for thee.

Omaha Steve   (1000+ posts)            Sun Mar-30-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Can't say till after next weekend
   

Yes I do. If you can't show porno in public, why do we have to see the disgusting photos? Same thing. We live down the street from the clinic here. They use a 20 foot truck with huge photos covering the side.

ayeshahaqqiqa   (1000+ posts)            Sun Mar-30-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. This sounds intriguing
   
I could see where one could say the fetus photos are not accurate as to how the fetuses actually look at the time of an abortion--my guess is that the photos used are of fetuses that are in the third trimester rather than the first. If so, they are inaccurate in portraying what the organism actually looks like. When I was a kid, I visited the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and they showed fetal development from conception on. And those early examples didn't look like anything human.

That is such a load of crap.





LOOKS PRETTY DAMN HUMAN TO ME!!!!!

[Uhhuh35]

Why is it called "reproductive rights" when it really means "sucking it into a sink"? Last time I checked that didn't qualify as "reproduction". That's more like taking out the trash.
And another thing, why don't men have a say in "reproductive rights" or "sucking it into a sink"? Seems we're half the "production" we should have half the "rights".

Tell me where I'm wrong.

[Carl]

My how they hate to look at the reality of what they espouse.

Guess what DUmmies...no matter how you wish to deny it,your dream of sexual irresponsibility is just that..a dream.

[DixieBelle]

Disgusting creatures aren't they?

[Carl]

Disgusting creatures aren't they?

Yes,every facet of their belief system is based on denying reality.

[VivisMom]

This isn't very Christian of me, but after reading that BS, I'd like to perform a post-birth abortion on  ayeshahaqqiqa.   

It just galls me when these pro-death types say that it's not a human. I had an ultrasound at 7 weeks or so because I was spotting...even at that early stage, there was a heartbeat. How can anyone say that something with a heartbeat isn't alive???

 

[LadyLiberty]

I could see where one could say the fetus photos are not accurate as to how the fetuses actually look at the time of an abortion--my guess is that the photos used are of fetuses that are in the third trimester rather than the first. If so, they are inaccurate in portraying what the organism actually looks like. When I was a kid, I visited the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and they showed fetal development from conception on. And those early examples didn't look like anything human.

Keep trying to delude yourself  in order to deny the TRUTH, you sick  .

People  have every right to show pictures of what infanticide looks like, and it should stay that way.

[LadyLiberty]

Why is it called "reproductive rights" when it really means "sucking it into a sink"? Last time I checked that didn't qualify as "reproduction". That's more like taking out the trash.
And another thing, why don't men have a say in "reproductive rights" or "sucking it into a sink"? Seems we're half the "production" we should have half the "rights".

Tell me where I'm wrong.

"Reproductive rights", my ass. That's another one of their spin tactics to try to deny the truth of what it really is, murder.

Just like you say, it's not about being denied the right to "reproduce", (duh, they DID reproduce, and they want to kill it).

You are absolutely right, men should have a say. Honestly though, I am willing to bet that a large number of women having abortions don't even know who the father is.

[Wretched Excess]

I recall an abortion protest during the last democratic convention (iirc) where the protester (randall terry, perhaps?) was holding an apparently aborted baby.  it was unsettling, but effective.  then the video crew cut over to the headquarters of some anti-life organization, and caught the palpable relief in the crowded room when it was reported that the baby was stillborn, not aborted.  (which stood to reason, really, since it looked completely intact.)

but I have always thought they were missing the point in a big way.

on edit : it may have been the 2000 dem convention, now that I think about it.

[Chris_]

I could see where one could say the fetus photos are not accurate as to how the fetuses actually look at the time of an abortion--my guess is that the photos used are of fetuses that are in the third trimester rather than the first. If so, they are inaccurate in portraying what the organism actually looks like. When I was a kid, I visited the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and they showed fetal development from conception on. And those early examples didn't look like anything human.

And yet everything we know about human biology and DNA is incontrovertible proof that the fetus is human. DUmmies know their science. 

[jukin]

I can think of roughly 4800 abortions that if they had been perfomed would not bring a tear to my eye.

[BlueStateSaint]

I can think of roughly 4800 abortions that if they had been perfomed would not bring a tear to my eye.

As un-Catholic as it sounds, I agree 110% with you.

[franksolich]

I can think of roughly 4800 abortions that if they had been perfomed would not bring a tear to my eye.

As un-Catholic as it sounds, I agree 110% with you.

My sentiments too.

The primitives wouldn't even be missed if they weren't here; the world has a whole lot of more-pressing problems to deal with, and without the primitives interfering, those bigger problems could perhaps be solved faster.

[Red October]

[DixieBelle]

One of the political blogs I visit (wizbang I think?) has a post on abortion and they have a youtube clip that I watched. It's about 10 minutes long and shows an abortion being performed via ultrasound. It was clearly filmed years ago judging from the way it looks and how the narrator is dressed. All you can see is the image of the fetus in black and white on the screen. It's something we all recognize though since ultrasounds are so common and you can clearly make out the shape of the baby. The narrator says that the woman who is getting the abortion was a "feminist" who readily agreed to allow it to be captured on ultrasound. He goes on to say that during the editing, she broke down and was very distraught as was an abortion doctor who supposedly never performed another one after being confronted with the images. I couldn't watch all of it but did manage to kind of fast forward through it. It just drove home the point I've always made: they must dehumanize it in order to kill it.

[Chris_]

I can think of roughly 4800 abortions that if they had been perfomed would not bring a tear to my eye.

I too agree with you on that subject.   

That is what gets me about this particular topic:

Those folks were allowed to live, yet they have no qualms about ending the lives of others (unless they are NON-human animals).  Animals can live, but babies cannot. 

[TheSarge]

They never do complete the sentence when they harp about "A woman's right to chose"....the NARAL gang always leaves off the "...murder" part of that statement.

[LadyLiberty]

They never do complete the sentence when they harp about "A woman's right to chose"....the NARAL gang always leaves off the "...murder" part of that statement.

That is a good point.

This is about women not wanting to be bothered raising these babies. It is not about "their body", which is another lie.

[Wretched Excess]

They never do complete the sentence when they harp about "A woman's right to chose"....the NARAL gang always leaves off the "...murder" part of that statement.

That is a good point.

This is about women not wanting to be bothered raising these babies. It is not about "their body", which is another lie.

it would be "inconvenient".

[DixieBelle]

I'm going to cut and paste some great comments here from wizbang. They posted an article earlier about PP's profits last year and the number of abortions rising.

1) As several commenters noted, those numbers mean that Planned Parenthood had about an 11% operating profit. If they weren't a non-profit, that would make them a better investment than the oil companies, whose 9% rate of return was labeled "obscene."

2) In one year, the number of abortions Planned Parenthood performed jumped by almost 25,000, an increase of 9.3% over the previous year. Since they are the experts on this, would they care to offer some kind of explanation as to why the hell this happened?

3) Did anyone else immediately find their subconscious drawing parallels between Planned Parenthood's benefiting from... er... "unplanned impending parenthood" and the news that, at the shelter PETA runs at its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, the percentage of dogs and cats that it takes in that it eventually kills has shot up from over 70% to over 90%?

4) If you divide the total number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood in 2006 by 365, you find out that they performed an average of 793 abortions a week day -- presuming they operated 24/7/365. If you knock off weekends and holidays, it's probably closer to 250 days, which brings the total up to 1158.6. That converts to roughly, five years worth of American casualties in Iraq every three and a half DAYS.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/03/30/death-benefits.php

[LadyLiberty]

Thank you Dixie for providing this.

PP is an evil force, no doubt about that.

[HACKSAW]

It just drove home the point I've always made: they must dehumanize it in order to kill it.

Exactly DixieBelle.

They call it a fetus when they want to kill it and they call it a baby when they want it to live. I've even heard someone once call it a "Parasitic mass of cells". I asked them, "Would still call it that if you wanted to keep it? Technically, it's still a parasitic mass of cells."

You guessed it. No answer.

On reflection, the term "Parasitic Mass Of Cells" is a rather accurate description of 99.9% of liberals.

[Chris_]

You know, a few years back my sister had a miscarriage. She was VERY early along, maybe 6 weeks. She was holding it in her hand and my nieces and nephews were knocking on the door. Her and my BIL decided to let the children see it if they wanted. My sis was still sitting on the floor, still a little stunned. Anyway, the 4 year old, who didn't really even have an idea what it meant to be pregnant, looked and said, "Oh a baby!" and went on about his business. If a four year old can recognized a tiny baby small enough to be held in a woman's small hand it seems pretty obvious we aren't dealing with a glob of tissue here.

Cinde

[Toastedturningtidelegs]

ayeshahaqqiqa   (1000+ posts)            Sun Mar-30-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. This sounds intriguing
   
I could see where one could say the fetus photos are not accurate as to how the fetuses actually look at the time of an abortion--my guess is that the photos used are of fetuses that are in the third trimester rather than the first. If so, they are inaccurate in portraying what the organism actually looks like. When I was a kid, I visited the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and they showed fetal development from conception on. And those early examples didn't look like anything human.

Ahh! there it is one of the terms that magically make it ok to kill babies! right up there with "piece of tissue"

[TheSarge]

Ahh! there it is one of the terms that magically make it ok to kill babies! right up there with "piece of tissue"
[/quote]

Don't forget the magic "clump of cells" defense for their condoning of murder.