posted on March 15, 2001 01:24:29 PM new
Like so many have said in this thread "lights are on but nobody is home". In short, "both oars arent in the water". Agenda is very clear here. Insist, cut and paste what looks good to that side, ignore the rest. Avoid answering the question of whether the child being adopted is healthy and normal, or handicapped. The refusal to answer speaks volumes. Whats the next word I want? Hypocrite. That fits.
For mzalez to do what shes doing, with her mommy posts and her misrepresentations and her insistance that she is right and everyone else is wrong, insults those women who had to make difficult choices, but make them they did. Again, the word hypocrite fits very well.
Let me speak slowly here, in the vain hope you might understand.
We know what D&X is about.
None of us like it.
But at least some of us consider the wider picture (and we don't need your pictures or diagrams to do that!)
Give us a solution beyond simple prohibition.
Solve the moral dilemma.
If you can't do that, please go and find some issue where you really can make a difference.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:37:49 PM new
James,
"Helen, would it were so simple. A baby being delivered at the end of nine months in a normal, healthy delivery situation is not a "genetic fetus".
posted on March 15, 2001 01:37:54 PM new
Thanks Capriole!
If you read my post you would see that I feel that talking "nice" is not necessesarily being polite.Sometimes it's just a cover for how you really are. bobbysoxer, I am not referring to you!
You can be polite by not doing things that offend others when in their presense. By not doing things you've been asked not to do. You can be polite by helping with the dishes. Lots of ways to be polite without talking "nice".
I am not particularly polite- so be it.
James, True not a vast majority but majority none the less.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:45:21 PM new
The following writings by Supreme Court Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas contain graphic and disturbing language describing the Partial Birth Abortion procedure.
This language was presented in the actual Court opinions of the PBA case from the Supreme Court last year. Supreme Court of the United States No. 99-830
Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al., Petitioners v. Leroy Carhart
June 28, 2000
Justice Scalia, dissenting in the Stenberg case:
"I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court's jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott. The method of killing a human child-one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child -proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion."
Justice Thomas wrote the following in his Dissent:
"We were reassured repeatedly in Casey that not all regulations of abortion are unwarranted and the States may express profound respect for fetal life. Under Casey, the regulation before us today should easily pass constitutional muster. But the Court's abortion jurisprudence is a particularly virulent strain of constitutional exegesis. And so today we are told that 30 States are prohibited from banning one rarely used form of abortion that they believe to border on infanticide. It is clear the Constitution does not compel this result."
In speaking of what partial birth abortion is, Justice Thomas described the procedure:
"In the almost 30 years since Roe, this Court has never described the various methods of aborting a second- or third-trimester fetus. From reading the Majority's sanitized description, one would think that this case involves state regulation of a widely accepted routine medical procedure. Nothing could be further from the truth. The most widely used method of abortion during this stage of pregnancy is so gruesome that its use can be traumatic even for the physicians and medical staff who perform it.
"After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. At this stage of development, the head is the largest part of the body. Assuming the physician has performed the dilation procedure correctly, the head will be held inside the uterus by the woman's cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman's body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus' head, and pull the fetus from the uterus."
Further on in the opinion the Justice writes:
"In cases in which the physician inadvertently dilates the woman to too great a degree, the physician will have to hold the fetus inside the woman so that he can perform the procedure."
--------------------------
I have to run to the post office before it closes...see you all this evening...
posted on March 15, 2001 01:50:23 PM new
yep there are extremists on both side of the fence.....
mzalez
I believe you agree with me that we can agree to disagree. Right? And that just because we do disagree doesn't mean that we are not to be nice and polite to each other. Right?
As far as I am concerned you have been "nice" and "polite" to me. I may not have returned the graciousness to you and I am sorry.
I believe you are as passionate to your opinions as I am with mine. Doesn't mean either one is wrong nor does it mean either one of us is right.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:52:13 PM new
Moderator...bogus thread... endless and offensive?
What are the odds of you taking it out of circulation if I ask?
Like I said prior: Highly offensive. If she came to the board and spouted racist hate speech it would be no LESS offensive.
Thanks
