It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Over 40 Million Dead Babies - Will Either Obama Or McCain Stop The American Abortion Holocaust?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:20 PM
Yes there are concret examples of what I'm talking about regarding the death penalty. T

For 110 inmates freed by DNA tests, true freedom remains elusive


Their time in prison surpassed 1,000 years, and all were wrongly convicted. Then they returned to lives that had passed them by.

An Associated Press examination of what happened to 110 inmates after their convictions were overturned by DNA tests found that, for many of the men, vindication brought neither a happy ending nor a happy beginning.

"It destroyed my family," says Vincent Moto, unjustly convicted of rape and imprisoned for 10 1/2 years in Pennsylvania. "It cost me over $100,000 to get exonerated. That was my mom and dad's money to retire. They're struggling. I'm struggling." Moto, a 39-year-old father of four, says his kids suffered psychologically and he still has nightmares of prison. He survives on odd jobs, welfare and food stamps. "I have to live with these scars all my life," he says.

Richard Danziger is even less fortunate. Wrongly convicted of rape and sentenced to life, he suffered permanent brain damage when his head was bashed in by another inmate. Danziger was released in 2001 after he served 11 years in Texas. Now, at age 31, he lives with his sister, Barbara Oakley. "He basically gets up, watches TV, goes to the park, and that's the extent of his day," she says.

Lesly Jean, a 42-year-old former Marine imprisoned in North Carolina for a rape he did not commit, struggles to rebuild his life.

"You know that old saying, 'When someone knocks you down, you need to get back up'? Well," he says, "sometimes it's not that simple to get back up."

That's especially true when the released men find themselves in a new world where they carry few up-to-date job skills, limited education, and heavy, if not bitter, hearts. For many, being set free doesn't mean freedom.

In reviewing the cases of the 110, all men, the AP found:

- About half had no prior adult convictions, according to legal records and the inmates' attorneys. While some were picked up for questioning because they were known to police, many had never been in trouble before.

- Eleven of the men served time on death row; two came within days of execution.

- Slightly more than a third have received compensation, mainly through state claims. Some have received settlements from civil lawsuits or special legislative bills. For others, claims or suits are pending; and some had lawsuits thrown out or haven't decided
whether to seek money.

- The men averaged 10 1/2 years behind bars. The shortest wrongful incarceration was one year; the longest, 22 years. Altogether, the 110 men spent 1,149 years in prison.

- Their imprisonment came during critical wage-earning years when careers and families are built. The average age when they entered prison was 28. At release, it was 38.

- Their convictions follow certain patterns. Nearly two-thirds were convicted with mistaken testimony from victims and eyewitnesses. About 14 percent were imprisoned after mistakes or alleged misconduct by forensics experts. Nine were mentally retarded or borderline retarded and confessed, they said, after being tricked or coerced by authorities.

Finally freed - by determined lawyers or their own perseverance - the men were dumped back into society as abruptly as they were plucked out. Often, they were not entitled to the help, such as parole officers, given to those rightfully convicted.

"The people who come out of this are often very, very severely damaged human beings who often don't ever fully recover," says Rob Warden, executive director of Northwestern University School of Law's Center on Wrongful Convictions. "Lightning strikes, they come out," he says, "and they're in bad, bad shape."

The last names of many of the people mentioned above speaks to it being a racial issue more often than not.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:33 PM
The abortion debate will be settled a little bit after teenagers learn how to keep their pants on. Are all abortions limited to teenagers, course not, but they are the main focus.
As for adoption, it's not a win all scenario. Yes, there are people lining up to adopt. From here in the states, and from other countries as well. And, if the kids are adopted at a young age, they do fairly well. Youll note that orphanages are pretty busy with kids. A lot of them don't get adopted. They get their education and take what their backgrounds gave them and move with it. I don't know much else except that.
Sure, proper sex ed is more than a good idea, but it's not a end all answer. Teenagers, being teenagers, make mistakes. Some mistakes are more costly than others. SOme people, they are responsilib, they do their best, and what happens, happens. There are other kids who, in my opinion, would have been better off not being born. They deserve much better, and they don't get it. And, then their kids deserve the same,

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:57 PM
I do so get tired of the superficial arguments when it comes to this debate. There are so many and many are complete nonsense. This is not a specific indictment, just a general preface.

Personally, I am not religious at all, and derive my beliefs from knowledge and reason. I am, fundamentally, pro-life. I do not approve of it for cases of rape or incest. I do not approve of it unless there is a clear danger of the woman's life (as in imminent) and that a doctor should be present if there is any hope of saving the child.

I believe Roe should be overturned and that should be given to the states to do with as they see fit. And no, this will not turn abortion into a criminal act overnight, and might actually be loosened depending on the state you live in.

-The argument that Pro-life is wrong because we are forcing our morality on another is totally baseless. It seems that morality in the sense of stealing or murder is somehow ubiquitous, yet fails to be labeled as what it is. Morality forced on the whole.

While I'm not equating those acts with abortion, it stands to reason that morality CAN be forced on another, and rightfully so, at times.

-The idea that because we live in a twisted and selfish world, we should save these children from the pain of existence is truly sad. While it's certainly possible that they may have poor upbringings, to say the least, it is not set in stone.

This also removes the fortitude of the child/person, some of whom wilt in the best of circumstances, some of whom rise from the ashes of terrible lives to give substance to others.

That is not something that can be used in this debate because the variables are simply too enormous.

-In my mind, the real debate is not abortion at all, but the definition of life. This simply isn't something that we can quantify at any point in our lives, let alone for a fetus. We can say heartbeat, brain activity, conception, birth, etc, but we really don't know when life begins because we are ignorant.

Nevertheless, I'm of the belief that we should always work to err on the side of life, since it's the most important thing you will ever possess.

-Adoption is a key element in this. Not overly large, but certainly key. I'm of the impression that we should begin to open adoption more. While the system will never remotely resemble perfect, we can be more reasonable in placing children.

Many of the same religious folks that are against abortion, also oppose gay adoption. This to me is silly for many reasons, the least of which is that I'd much prefer a child have something more permanent than something more temporary.

If you'd like to discuss any of my points, please do (neatly please).

If you want to be badgering or get into mean-spirited debate, don't bother.

Let's seek for a higher level of discourse, maybe this thread can be a little better than all the others covering this debate.

The long awaited return of KJ is at hand


posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:19 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan

That's not exactly true.

The waiting list for babies is very long. When we started the process we were told it was an 8 year wait. We ended up going overseas (Bolivia) because we didn't want to wait 8 years.

It has nothing to do with 'better babies'. It has to do with not wanting to wait for 8 years. And yes, we were very much open to inter-racial adoption. But the states don't like to do that sort of thing.'d be willing to wait the 6 years if it meant less abortions???
my concern in this is really more in the line of the women's health...that she remains healthy enough to continue to fullfill the obligations she alteady has. that she doesn't end up like that nearly blind lady in poland, impaired with a bunch of kids she still has to take care of. if a mom with three kids is gonna end up bedridden, or worse, by carrying a child full term, who's ganna be taking care of the kids? should hubby take off work to do it? are society's angels gonna come out of the woodwork and do it? or is it just not gonna get done? or......could it be, the state will come in, take the kids and throw them into foster homes where the foster parent will get sick of them complaining about headache and slap of patch full of narcotics on them and kill them? the baby's rights does not trump the hosts....there's no way it can. not anymore than I could have the right to go to your house and break both of your legs and send your family into that kind of turmoil.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:22 AM
Obama, the most liberal senator, certainly will not do anything about abortion.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:05 AM
The Survivors

Gianna Jessen, Jim Kelly, Sarah Smith, Sarah Brown, Ana Rosa Rodriguez, Baby Claire, Baby Grace, Baby Hope. These are not names well known in America. But they should be. They are the names of a few of the survivors of the longest, deadliest war in U.S. history: the 30-year Abortion War.Sarah Smith, Ana Rosa Rodriguez, Gianna Jessen, and their fellow survivors are unanswerable, living refutations of this incredible lie. They are “blobs of tissue” who survived “botched” abortions. Against all odds, their lives were preserved to bear witness against the spirit of this age which counsels that convenience, self-indulgence, and self-worship are the highest good. The refusal of the pro-abortion Establishment media to report their stories is understandable; any coverage of these survivors devastatingly exposes the lie. Any photograph of these miraculous survivors instantly, visually establishes the fact of their humanness.

Gianna Jessen Saline Abortion Survivor

[edit on 103030p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:13 AM
Live Birth Abortions

Testimony of Jill Stanek

In the event that an aborted baby is born alive, she or he receives "comfort care," defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until s/he dies. Parents may hold the baby if they wish. If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cares for the baby until s/he dies. If staff did does not have the time or desire to hold the baby, s/he is taken to Christ Hospital’s new Comfort Room, which is complete with a First Foto machine if parents want professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair. Before the Comfort Room was established, babies

were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking a Down’s syndrome baby who was aborted alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.


Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing on H.R.4292, The "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2000"

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by MandM

40 million?!??! THATS IT???

40 million babies that would have been born to young mothers, mothers who did not want them, mothers on drugs, mothers with no money, mothers who have been raped, babies with retardation, babies that would have grown up in high crime areas, no money, no father, no loving mother, over crowding...

and 40 million babies would grow up into the image of their mother and have another 3 (on average) degenerated little babies themselves.

Crime, poverty, over crowding all with the worst of the worst of society...

Abortion = population control.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by RuneSpider

Great post Rune. When the Christian Fundamentalist stop dictating the lives of everyone around them, schools can properly educate kids on sex and teach them exactly how and why protection can and should be used. AND THEN make it readily available.. birth control should be free.

But just imagine 40 million babies put into orphanages instead of abortion ..

Oh wait..

We can look at Russia to see how that's working out.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:26 AM

In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘so-called’ partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

A package of Born Alive bills was introduced three times during Obama's tenure.

Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. They sent Born Alive to the infamously liberal Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.As can be seen on the Actions docket, Obama held Born Alive on March 6, 2003, from even being voted on in committee. It is also important to note from the docket that on March 13, 2003, Obama stopped the senate sponsor from adding the lately discussed clarification paragraph from the federal BAIPA, to make the bills absolutely identical.


He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills.

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:33 AM
I bet people wouldn't treat a dog this way, what have we become?

How cold? How heartless?

What will it take to get people to see what they are doing?

This has nothing to do with christianity, and everything to do with humanity.

Many cultures respect the the sanctity of life,

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

These are the problems of a morally defunct and over populated world. To expand the population beyond reason will only leave more dead in the end.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

If you're against abortion, then you're fighting in the wrong venue.

The issue of abortion reaches these peaks because teenagers can't keep their pants on.
They think sex is cool, and they premisculously run amuck with every guy/girl they can get their legs around, and poof a baby.

Go fight that crowd instead of the people who are fighting for a right to choose. Advocates for "abortion" arent saying "KILL BABIES ROAR!!!"
they're syaing its a persons right to choose

want to stop abortion?
go stop 14 year old whores from having sex with 17 guys.
go stop 18 year whores from raping 13 year old women

teach protection and contraception
teach "wait until your married"

the best solution for any problem is to attack the problem its self.

politicians fighting for freedom of choice isnt the problem
you can outlaw abortion and it will still happen just like weed smokers, crack snorters, and meth puffers

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

I guess the term overpopulation doesn't mean anything to you does it?

The more abortions there are, the better off everyone is.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:26 PM
I have nothing to say, the VIOLENT act of abortion, perpetrated upon the unborn and the women, speaks for itself, it is a crime against humanity.

What does it say about our culture, when the most important political stand, is your stand on the murder of the most innocent?

[edit on 123030p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

You act as if people are just going around forcing abortions on people.

Fact: They aren't.

Women VOLUNTARILY walk into an office, women VOLUNTARILY consult a doctor, and women VOLUNTARILY receive an abortion.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Your confused or ignorant..

I am for abortion.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:59 PM
But he was unmoved, and cried: "If I am mad, it is mercy! May the gods pity the man who in his callousness can remain sane to the hideous end!"

H.P. Lovecraft

"The Temple"

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 03:20 PM

In 2000 and 2001, the highest percentage of abortions were performed on women between the ages of 20 and 30, with women ages 20–24 having the highest rate (47 per 1,000 women). Adolescents ages 15–19 accounted for 19% of elective abortions, while 25% were performed on women older than 30. Approximately 73% of women having an abortion had previously been pregnant; 48% of those had a previous abortion.

seems like those "kids who can't keep their pants on" only represent 19% of the abortions...
25% were performed on women older than 30.....around the age of 30, the doctors start recommend women get off the pill because of it's bad side effects.
around 75% of the abortions are on women that had been previously pregnant, with a little under a half of those having had previous abortions.

I think it would be safe to say that a significant number of these abortions are being done on MARRIED women, who've already have kids, and who JUST DON'T WANT ANYMORE!! and who can blame them, after the age of 30 or so, it also becomes more dangerous to deliver a child! The birth control pill is the most effective method of birth control. all the other methods, except abstinance, fall very short of the results that the pill give. so guys and gals, unless you want a really large family, or look forward to years of married celebacy.....quite your griping!! if you get your way, there will be much bigger families for society to contend with, more unhappy marriages, because danged if I would want to have sex if I knew it meant possibly having my 6th child! and, more women dying in childbirth, since it IS more dangerous to have kids the older you get!

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:08 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

Thats an awfully harsh way to say "you mis replied"

It was not aimed towards you

i just have a bad habit of 'reply to" instead of "post reply"

maybe be a little less critical next time.
any moron with a brain stem can see you're pro-abortion from your post

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in