The abortion debate often ends in a stalemate of a woman's right to choose vs. the right of a baby to life. The procedure that ends the life an unborn baby remains abstract for most people, but to truly understand the argument of those of us opposed to this gruesome practice I decided to post this Youtube video. As a physician who has witnessed this procedure first-hand while in med school I can attest that the depictions shown here are typical and are not unusual occurrences.
This video contains very graphic images that I hope most viewers will find very disturbing. Be forewarned.
With the election of Barrack Obama it is unlikely we'll see an end to this abom- ination anytime soon, but let us pray that hearts will be moved and our country will recognise the evil that has produced the deaths of over 40 million innocent lives.
Monday, November 24, 2008
A Look at the Harsh Reality of Abortion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
If we're going to defend it and keep it legal--as many in South Dakota did earlier this month--we ought to be able to look squarely at the consequences of our advocacy.
Keep the ugly videos coming. You'll continue to weaken your uncompassionate, mean attack on families that face difficult medical decisions.
South Dakotans said no in 2008, and you can bet that if this hits the ballot in 2010 it will be an even stronger no.
I'm praying that we can join together and support responsible behavior, education, and access to healthcare for women so abortions can be further reduced.
The decision to have an abortion in many (most?) cases is a morally bankrupt one.
That abortion, though, is legal for all nine months of the pregnancy, is not true. If we're going to have a discussion about the issue, let's be honest. Before you get hot, Bob, I know you did not produce the video; there's not personal attack here. I've read many of your posts on abortion, any most of what you write has real basis in fact.
The middle ground on this issue seems SO obvious to me. The vast majority of Americans would agree that we should reduce the number of abortions over time to ZERO. ZERO should be the goal.
Obtaining that goal through outlawing abortion will not happen in most states, though. What do we do? Promote abstinence, promote contraception, promote adoption, promote kinship care, etc. Do so with both private and public funds, I'd argue.
I'm all for responsible behavior, Curtis. However, I don't think handing out condoms and other forms of contraceptive and hoping they work really qualifies.
After viewing this video, are you proud of what you helped maintain in the state of South Dakota? Are you pleased that there will be at last another 700 of these in the coming year?
Actually, Colin, in some places they do take place through the ninth month.
Remember the controversial partial birth abortion procedure that was only in the last few years banned in the US? It's specifically for late-term abortions. But don't worry; abortionists still have other methods of killing children at late-term, even though we've banned that one procedure.
But the killing is the same, regardless of the developmental age.
Incidentally, do you know at what developmental age an unborn child has a heartbeat? Brain activity? A central nervous system? Can feel pain? It's very early on, and might surprise you.
The only way to stop this barbaric procedure is to stop this barbaric procedure. There is no middle ground when it comes to murder.
Sry, Bob. I may have mis-typed the word verification the first time. Pls post the below if you haven't yet.
Well, the video claims that abortion is permitted through the ninth month in all states, which isn't true, but it's also beside the point. Really beside the point.
I'm with you most of the way on abortion, Bob. I'm not for a free-for-all at all, and I think our goal should be to reduce abortions to zero. I believe the ending of human life is morally corrupt before viability and murder after viability.
I have knowledge of the stages of growth of human life. (My words were chosen carefully there; we are dealing with human life.)
Bashing folks over the head with the murder hammer on this one, though, EVEN IF it's true, will do less to reduce the number of abortions in this country.
No court will overturn what's left of Roe and Casey to overturn, and that's just the FIRST step in outlawing abortion. Of course, folks can fight to end abortion at the state level with some success, but they will not be successful in most states, as public opinion is strongly against them.
Since the population is seeing a decline in the percentage of folks that have religious and moral convictions against abortions, we risk an increase in abortions if we do not fight abortion on as many fronts as possible. My point is pragmatic: I don't believe the murder rhetoric will end abortion, whether or not it's true.
This, of course, would require evangelical support of OTHER methods likely to reduce abortion, which is a really tough sell.
You don't need to fight me on this one. I want far less abortions (goal of ZERO) for reasons similar to those that you want to outlaw abortion, and I want LESS unwanted children in our foster care system. Our country doesn't get there be re-playing the broken record of "Murder" most have stopped listening to.
I will agree, categorically, that any abortion performed after the human life is viable is WRONG, and should be outlawed. And, you can gain support to outlaw those late-term abortions using the murder rhetoric.
Effective promotion of contraception and adoption as well as reforms in the foster care and adoption laws will reduce the number of early-term abortions. These, I believe, will never be outlawed, so we must find a way to reduce them through other methods. We can disagree on the methods to use and who will pay for it, but if we really care about human life (and I do), we need to consider methods other then an outright ban.
While I believe he just said "in the United States" which could generally sum up most state and federal laws, I don't think he said "in all states."
However, I believe that it actually IS legal in all states to the 9th month.
But I have to run for now. Will come back later to address this when I have the stats to back my claim. I do know that some states have no developmental restriction whatsoever, and most if not all allow for "health of the mother" exceptions, which includes "mental health" which, unless specifically worded as South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11 was, can essentially mean "It stresses me out to have this baby" can be used to justify an abortion.
Back with more later...
Here's an up-to-date summary of the law by state:
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf
You are correct, Bob. In most states (probably all, but I haven't researched the language in every state statute), abortion is legal up until the time the baby clears the birth canal. It only needs to be documented that the procedure was performed to protect the health of the mother. And as you have indicated, that very well might only be the "mental health."
The abortions that I witnessed in medical training occurred before I was a Christian, but seeing what I saw convinced me that abortion was indeed the taking of a human life and something that could only degrade our society. Sadly, I was right.
Colin, it looks like the info provided in the Guttmacher link you provided are accurate in comparison to some other sources I looked at (even if Guttmacher is a propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood), so I'll let that stand uncontested.
As I stated earlier, the health exception--especially "mental health" is a loophole a mile wide which is often used to accomplish abortion on demand. It's why we took such great care to word Initiated Measure 11 in South Dakota carefully, to prevent misuse of the exception.
So unless the state law is very specific about that health exception, then it probably allows abortion all the way to full and total birth (which is what the "partial birth abortion" procedure was designed to do--thwart the illegality of killing a born-alive infant by killing him/her only inches from full birth).
The "murder hammer" may seem heavy, but I've never been one to pussy-foot and mince words. In fact, I think when we put perfume on a pig by avoiding candid language, it becomes too easy to excuse immoral behavior.
The unborn child has human DNA from the moment of conception. That DNA is also completely unique--it doesn't share DNA with it's mother, so it isn't a part of her body she can do with as she pleases. The child is also complete and whole in its genetic profile at that time; it only needs some additional time for development (which can also be said for an infant, a toddler, or even an adolescent). What does all this mean? It means the unborn child is clearly a human being, and the intentional killing of an innocent human being is "murder."
I'm all for fighting abortion on any and every front. And contraception is an option for married couples who have no moral reservations about that, but it's disingenuous to push contraception (under the guise of "abortion reduction") when we know it's primarily an avenue for greater sexual license. Besides, as I can attest as a father, even oral contraceptives are not 100% effective--which still leaves you with the choice of killing your unborn child or allowing life to take it's natural course.
We've banned the killing of 5-year-olds because it's murder. Killing a human being at 2 months development--were most of them occur--is no less murder, because the only difference between the 5-year-old and the 2-month-developed child is just that: development.
We've totally banned killing 5-year-olds; we should totally ban killing innocent humans at any stage of development.
I just have one question. Do you seriously think that legally outlawing abortion is going to actually stop those who truly need/want an abortion from obtaining one? If so, that's rather naive. When abortion was illegal, it happened all the time, probably just as often as it does now, though there are obviously no records to prove that. The primary difference is that it happened without any regulation, with no regard to safety to the patient, proper anesthetics, sterile conditions, and what would often result was the permanent injury or death of the mother, in addition to the child.
Now, I am not *for* abortion specifically, I think it should be an absolute last resort for any mother, but banning it legally seems to be a way of merely sweeping the issue under the rug, rather than addressing the problems as to why these mothers feel a need to abort in the first place. Does this make sense to you?
RadioDJ134, I know it will stop the vast majority of abortions. For those who insist on doing their own abortions or "back alley" abortions, at least the state (and we citizens who make up the state in our representative democracy) will not be morally culpable in those deaths.
You're "not 'for' abortions," but apparently think the option should remain legal You are therefore "for" keeping the option to murder your own child legal. How you do you feel about that, morally and ethically?
If you have no problems with that, maybe we should be "against" killing your two-year-old daughter, but make it legal as a "last resort" for those mothers who "need" to kill their irritating toddlers. Does that make sense to you?
You really do live in a dream world Bob. What never ceases to amaze me is how much someone who is a supposed conservative wants so much government control in everyones lives.
Yes, I think abortion should remain a legal option for those who require it. There are plenty of cases where it is someones only option. Perhaps the profession should be more stringently controlled as to whom can get access and when, but I certainly don't think it should be dismissed completely. Lets use your own tactic of taking examples to extremes. Your teenaged daughter is brutally raped, and becomes pregnant as a result. She could potentially carry the baby to term, but if she does, there is an 85% chance she will die giving birth due to her body not being properly developed enough to carry a child, as well as other complications unforseen by any and all rape victims. Do you think she should be forced by law to try and birth this child? Or should she have the option to end that pregnancy?
And for the record, we're not talking about "my child" or "irritating" children. You're simply muddying the waters there, and I'm not about to take the bait. Sorry.
You must have me confused with an anarchist or an extreme libertarian, RadioDJ134. Conservatives realize there is a role for government, but it is a minimal one. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Who "requires" abortion? Would that be the less than 1% where the life of the mother may be affected? If that's the case, I think almost all pro-lifers would agree with you there. Would you support banning abortion except for those cases where it is truly required?
And I'm not muddying the waters with my example. It's a serious extension of your logic. I'd appreciate it if you'd consider it and answer it.
Post a Comment