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.
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.
Disgusting creatures aren't they?
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.
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.
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.
I can think of roughly 4800 abortions that if they had been perfomed would not bring a tear to my eye.
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.
I can think of roughly 4800 abortions that if they had been perfomed would not bring a tear to my eye.
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.
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.
:yeahthat:
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.
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."http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/03/30/death-benefits.php
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.
It just drove home the point I've always made: they must dehumanize it in order to kill it.
ayeshahaqqiqa (1000+ posts) Sun Mar-30-08 10:41 AMAhh! there it is one of the terms that magically make it ok to kill babies! :whatever: right up there with "piece of tissue" :whatever:
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! :whatever: right up there with "piece of tissue" :whatever:
Ahh! there it is one of the terms that magically make it ok to kill babies! :whatever: right up there with "piece of tissue" :whatever:
I'm still trying to figure out when the magic clump of cells indistinguishable from any other clump of cells in the human body actually became a baby. No wonder we offer public assistance since at any time the stork can waive a little fertility dust and make a clump of cells into a human baby. Incredible stuff! :uhsure:Ever hear of "healing white light"? Duh! :-)
I'm still trying to figure out when the magic clump of cells indistinguishable from any other clump of cells in the human body actually became a baby. No wonder we offer public assistance since at any time the stork can waive a little fertility dust and make a clump of cells into a human baby. Incredible stuff! :uhsure:Ever hear of "healing white light"? Duh! :-)
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.
I double dog dare any liberal or abortion rights supporter to click on the following link and tell me that it is a parasite and not a baby. I used to support abortion on demand too until I opened my eyes and realized everything I had been fed was a lie. :bawl:WARNING VERY GRAPHIC!!!!!!!http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures1.htm
BlueFireAnt (19 posts) Mon Mar-31-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Should it be your friend's right to carry the family planning further?
Could she "abort" her child if she sees she can't care for him at 6 months old? Either way she's killing a baby she can't take care of.
I don't think someone should keep a baby that they can't take care of or even don't want, but there are too many people out there that want children and can't have them. My niece was adopted at 45 minutes old, so I am kinda biased on this issue.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top
musette_sf (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-31-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. i do not think any woman owes anyone
Edited on Mon Mar-31-08 08:13 PM by musette_sf
the use of her uterus because "there are too many people out there that want children and can't have them".
too bad.
firstly, there are many children available for adoption... if "perfect healthy white infant" is not a criterion.
secondly, what did people do in the old days when they could not have children? some adopted, some got closer with children in the extended family, some got involved in pro-bono activities helping children. having a child is NOT a G-d given right. people need to adjust to their circumstances and do the best they can within them, not try to force the world to accommodate their sense of entitlement.
and i resent your psuedo-scientific "killing a baby". in pregnancy terminations, no babies are killed. please be scientific, and supportive of freedom of choice and Constitutional right to privacy in health care matters, in the Choice forum on Democratic Underground. there are plenty of anti-woman, anti-choice sites to chit-chat if you don't support choice and freedom.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Yes its a little different when you have to see the corpse!I double dog dare any liberal or abortion rights supporter to click on the following link and tell me that it is a parasite and not a baby. I used to support abortion on demand too until I opened my eyes and realized everything I had been fed was a lie. :bawl:WARNING VERY GRAPHIC!!!!!!!http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures1.htm
The thing is, I don't really think they care. Sometimes I think it's not just because they don't want to be reminded of what an abortion actually is. They're forced to face their own callousness of how cheap they view life in general. Maybe it's not so much THEY don't want to look at them as it is they don't want others to see them. Interjecting harsh, ugly reality into the debate makes little their slogans like "right to choose" and "keep your laws off of my body" proof of the shallow, selfish people they are.
Cindie
I double dog dare any liberal or abortion rights supporter to click on the following link and tell me that it is a parasite and not a baby. I used to support abortion on demand too until I opened my eyes and realized everything I had been fed was a lie. :bawl:WARNING VERY GRAPHIC!!!!!!!http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures1.htm