First of all, I still can't see how anyone could want to see a human baby vaporized and claim that that's "American" and watch with pained eyes as a child-killed is gassed. I can see being anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, or anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, or pro-both, but being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty's sense escapes me.
And now my pro-life case:
I'm a practising lesbian, but I sometimes go with my swingin' female buddies to the Abraham Lincoln Abortion Emporium in Encino and chuckle as those kiddies are liquidised on a screen before our very eyes. The doctors let us watch and sometimes, just for fun, they let us zap the f****** little brats ourselves.
This is an actual e-mail sent to a conservative website from a pro-choice feminist. This is what the pro-choice movement is like.
Text from http://www.radical-conservative.org/samuel.html
Take a good look at this picture.
It's one of the most remarkable photographs ever taken. The tiny hand of a
unborn baby reaches out from a mother's womb to clasp a
surgeon's healing finger. It is, by the way, 21 weeks old,
an age at which it could still be legally aborted. The tiny
hand in the picture above belongs to a baby which is
due to be born on December 28. It was taken during an
operation in America recently. Paul Harris reports on a
medical development in the control of the effects of
spina bifida ... and on a picture which will reverberate
through the on-going abortion debate here
Your first instinct is to recoil in horror. It looks like a
close-up of some terrible accident. And then you
notice, in the centre of the photograph, the tiny hand clutching a surgeon's finger.
The baby is literally hanging on for life. For this is one
of the most remarkable photographs taken in medicine
and a record of one of the world's most extraordinary
operations. It shows a 21-week-old unborn baby in its mother's womb,
about to undergo a spine operation designed to save it from serious brain damage.
The surgery was carried out entirely through the tiny
slit visible in the wall of the womb and the `patient' is
believed to be the youngest to undergo it.
At that age the mother could have chosen to have the
baby aborted. Her decision not to, however, led to an
astonishing test not just of medical technology, but of faith.
Samuel Armas has spina bifida, which left part of his
spinal cord exposed after the backbone failed to develop.
The operation was designed to close the gap and
protect the cord, the body's motorway for nerve signals to the brain.
So, on an unborn patient no bigger than a guinea-pig,
the operation was performed without removing the
foetus from the womb
The instruments had to be specially designed to work in miniature.
The sutures used to close the incisions were less than the thickness of a human hair.
-style crash-cart team was on constant standby in an adjoining room
When it was completed, however, Samuel's battle for
survival was only just beginning. Nor would the
emotional battle his parents had already endured finish quite yet.
Julie and Alex Armas had been trying desperately for a
baby. Julie, a 27-year-old nurse, had suffered two miscarriages
before she became pregnant with the child
they intended to call Samuel Alexander if it was a boy.
Then, at 14 weeks, she started to suffer terrible cramp.
An ultrasound scan was carried out to show the shape
of the developing foetus and its position in the womb.
When the picture emerged, it was the moment that
every parent-to-be dreads. Their unborn son's brain
was mis-shapen and his spinal cord was sticking out
from a deformed backbone. He had spina bifida. They
were devastated and ``torn apart'' said Alex, a
28-year-old jet aircraft engineer.
At that stage, and even weeks later, the couple could
have decided to have the pregnancy terminated. In their
home town of Georgia in the US as in Britain abortion is
routinely offered. Although accurate figures are not
available, many parents accept. For Julie and Alex, who
are deeply religious, it was not an option
That didn't mean, of course, that they were not racked
by pain at the thought that the child they had longed for was
It also riddled them with guilt over whether they had
effectively taken the decision to inflict their son with
years of handicap, pain and suffering.
So, this being the United States, they turned to the
internet for help.
Julie's mother found a website giving details of
pioneering surgery being carried out by a team at
Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.
Although the results have not yet been endorsed in
medical journals, they looked encouraging to Mr. And Mrs. Armas
Their doctor put them in touch with Dr. Joseph Bruner
(it is his finger in the photograph). A race against time
Because it affects the spinal cord, spina bifida can lead
to a condition that causes brain damage. Mr and Mrs.
Armas were told that if they were to avoid the
condition, which was not then present in Samuel, they had to act fast.
``I wasn't concerned about a child who couldn't walk,''
said Julie, ``but I want a child who knows me.''
The theory behind the surgery is that attention to he
spine disorder before the baby is born prevents or limits
brain damage, and gives a better chance of healing. It
does not cure spina bifida, but it is said to provide a
strong chance of limiting the damage through early intervention.
The risks, however, are enormous.
Controversy surrounds the use of such surgery because it goes
against the general medical rule that the risk should not outweigh the benefit.
Mr and Mrs Armas were fully aware that if anything
went wrong, no attempt would be made to deliver
Samuel by Caesarean section.
Medical science does not yet have the capability to
keep a 21-week-old foetus alive outside the womb.
The crash-cart was on standby for Julie, not Samuel
``If he dies, that's horrible for me and for us,'' said Julie
before she went into theatre. Wiping tears she added:
``But not for him. The worst thing might be if we don't
do this, and this is standard treatment when he's 21, and
he says: ``Why didn't you know about that?'' And we
say: ``We did, but we didn't do it for you.
The other major dangers were turning him in the womb
to get his back in line with an inch-long cut in the wall,
through which Dr Bruner would operate, and that the
surgery might involve releasing the fluid around Samuel.
The movement posed the risk of sending Julie into
labour contractions, which would have been fatal for Samuel.
Thus, one morning at the beginning of last month, Dr Bruner
could be heard urging his team to keep quiet.
``Shh!'' he said. ``You'll wake the baby"
Robert Davis, who reported on the operation for USA
Today newspaper, said the lesion that exposed
Samuel's spine was found low on his backbone,
decreasing the chance of nerve damage.
Although Samuel is believed to have been the
youngest patient for such an operation, it was
apparently routine enough for Dr Bruner and paediatric
neurosurgeon Noel Tullpant to talk about the weather
during the operation.
An hour later, the womb is gently eased back into place.
``Beautiful,'' said one of the technicians and relief swept the room.
Julie was allowed home with Alex within days.
The baby is due on December 28.
He has not yet felt the touch of his mother's skin
against his own and he knows nothing of life outside
her womb. But perhaps Samuel Alexander Armas will be
able to shake Dr Bruner's hand again.
The actual shape and size of a ten week old unborn baby's feet. Blob of cells gentlemen?
How many of you that are pro-life are so because of some sort of religious implication?
Not me. I'm not very religious at all.
Of those that do side with religious implication, what are the chance that you may believe that those who claim 'pro-choice' are non-religious or are actually 'pro-death'?
They are pro-death of a living human being, yes.
Where does the need tell someone else what they are doing is so wrong, per your beliefs or the like, come from when it is already NONE OF
Because it is our business. Even if it doesn't directly effect us, it effects our great nation. Thusly, it is our business. Ask yourself this: What if your mother had exercised her right to "choose"? What if Einstein's, Bethoven's, Edison's, Gordo's, et cetera had excercised her "right to choose"? There'd be no theory of relativity, no 9th Symphony, no electricity, no Continental Airlines today, 40,000 Continental employees jobless. Abortion had a bigger effect then you think.
Answer this question as either yes or no, can your government make laws to limit your life all while being hypocritical at times?
No. Your rights end where mine begin. That's what laws are supposed to do. Prevent people from enroaching on the rights of others. If you put up a huge sign in your front yard saying GEORGE W. BUSH IS
A NAZI you're infringing on his right to not have slander committed against him. You have free speech as long as it isn't inciting violence.