Vatican attacks US abortion move

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Childhood is roughly 18 years, so why do people act like it is a lifetime?

You must not have children. If you do - they must still be young.

reply to post by OhZone


Read what I said proerly,it helps the debate run that much smoother.

It means something major has to be done to make things better for the mother/parents who will give up their baby,the baby itself,and those that care for them after the birth.

Which means that the whole orphan/adoption area is screwed and something needs to be done.


Oh,and to answer your question,what kind of life is it living in an orphanage?

Well,first,its a chance to live,to love,to cry,to laugh...to not be dead.
Second....actually,I don't need a second because the first is good enough.

If you never existed you would never know what it is to be dead.

As "they" say: Death is for the living. The dead or never were don't care.

reply to post by OhZone


woo woo woo i was quoting someone else im fine with abortion i was standing up for women with abortion.
the quote about rape was from another poster which i appauled at reading.
and im actually a woman well last time i looked i was unless ive misplaced my penis somewhere they are pesky little devils



yep ive just checked my original post and i have definatly put the quote as a 'quote'
and just at the bottom of the quote is my response talking about the magnaline laudries in ireland.


[edit on 2/2/2009 by kerrichin]

reply to post by Annee


Ok.
Take a moment,and reread what you have posted.
See how moronic it is?

The baby exists.
It has a heartbeat.It breathes.It moves.

It is alive.It is sentient.

It is not dead.It exists.

Given the chance,it will live.


[edit on 2-2-2009 by DantesLost]

Originally posted by DantesLost
reply to post by Annee

 

Ok.
Take a moment,and reread what you have posted.
See how moronic it is?

The baby exists.
It has a heartbeat.It breathes.It moves.

It is alive.It is sentient.

It is not dead.It exists.

Given the chance,it will live.


[edit on 2-2-2009 by DantesLost]

It is not moronic in any way shape or form.

It works perfect within my belief. Physical is simply a temporary created "host" for an eternal energy being/soul to have an experience.

Leaving the physical "host" - is simply going back to the natural state.

Man created death as something horrible and something to mourn over - - - rather then celebrate a "soul" returning home to its natural eternal state of being.

Originally posted by OhZone

Aermacchi, do you get as riled up over the killing that goes on in war?

No

So now that Obama is “exporting abortion” around the world, and you object to it; tell me what do you think about just spending that money sterilizing all these people instead?

If people like majik who cannot understand how her so called freedom to choose in this regard is no different than removing her tonsils, then yeah I think that is a SPLENDID Idea and before you ask, I think it is just as good for males who can't keep it in their pants.

This would be for those seeking abortions who are past the 4th month.
Persuade them to wait till the 27the week; and then induce labor or do caesarian if necessary, to deliver a live baby. That way the woman sort of gets to have her cake and eat it too. If she has serious remorse about giving up the child she still has a chance to get it back.

First, unlike you and these self-serving condescending arrogant baby-killing zealots in here, parading themselves behind the guise of being the victims of a theocracy gone mad. I already see them having their cake and eating it too. Your solution, while I am not clear on what happens to the baby if they choose your answer to this raises many questions as to the human rights of a child born alive who by all intents and purposes, is now the beneficiary of all the same equal rights mandated by our constitution as you and I are.

Now of course you do realize that there is a waiting list for white babies, so they would never become a problem. However what would your plans for the non-white babies be? I’d like to see your thoughts on this.

I do not see any of these babies as the problem. What I see as a problem is the abortion industry. If you knew a damn thing about this sick macabre and aberrant form of health care, I do not see how ANYONE would tolerate such a practice in a modern and civilized society.

EXAMPLES:

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
'Roe' files to overturn high-court ruling
Winner of landmark '73 abortion case
challenges ruling, wants 'justice' done

Posted: June 17, 2003
1:00 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com


The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark Supreme Court case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is filing a motion in federal court today to overturn the 1973 decision.

worldnetdaily.com...

The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. Materialist socialism had as it always does, became communism and in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR. Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused It became government policy in the USSR. Eventually it became such a problem (as it always does when religion is vilified and outlawed) that Mikhail Gorbechev, recognizing what they had thought was such a bane to society was in fact the counter balance to an opposing ideology where le learned the hard way that no society thrives without such a culture to oppose the other from its own extremes.

American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA. In the sixties they had an agenda to get control of the media and Hollywood where they planned to use the media to alter public opinion and some of you might remember it as McCarthyism.

They went under the radar as Atheists and anti religionists who were committed to revise the constitution, remove God from our language and our politics, get an alternative philosophy a religion of scientism called Darwinism to indoctrinate our young and make God irrelevant in our public schools where a fatherless generation X would be our future.

As many who had scoffed at many of the allegations made during the McCarthy era, the fact is President Barack Obama stands as "The One" those communists, Saul Alinsky and Obama's favorite Author had been talking about and so carefully groomed as The One they had all been waiting for. He would be the one to usher in the next wave and final chapter in the crushing of our economy and the nationalization of our Banks and as we have seen this has already come to pass.

As it turns out, McCarthy was DEAD ON about this movement and his prophecy of the unknowing agents for change in a conspiracy to change our form of Government is as we have also seen the called "Change we can all believe in" But getting someone so well educated and so well groomed, someone with the financial support of NATIONS, would first have to get American voters so fatigued over the status quo that who ever preceded the one would have to simultaneously assist in getting the world to hate us while doing this behind the guise of the only philosophical ideology that had always been the enemy of Communism.

That person was George W Bush who made being a Christian and an American an embarrassment. This was the opportunity they had been waiting for and one they had to up their schedule to meet giving the freshmen senator the go ahead where he had previously announced he was not experienced enough. Experience can wait the time was now and the agenda is unfolding even now.

It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

Since BimbObama's election, I had seen him interviewed and they asked him what he hates and he said "Cruelty" I found that very curious coming from a man that fought so hard to create a Government mandate on a new form of capital punishment the likes of the Stalinist regime. Those to be executed in this method, it was discovered were invariably found to be in a state of full amnesia having no memory at all.

The kind of amnesia, doctors say, where you will not even recognize your own mother but perhaps for the sound of her voice.

This bill, when examined closely is nothing less than the systematic genocide of specific Americans with certain restrictions cannot be carried out in all circumstances.

The practice has been used for over a century in some cultures and the preparation one suffers at the hands of this execution process is hard to imagine. They say, you wouldn't be able to even speak because of the state of amnesia you are in, every word would be on the tip of your tongue but never expressed but some doctors say you will scream and you will cry out as you discover during the preparation of this type of capital punishment you are in a condition whereby you no longer have full control of your limbs or muscle control and in such a weakened state weak that even petite, small framed females, will over power you as they take you to the final place of your execution.

You will be placed in a cold dark room unable to move speak and no one will know who you are, nor will anyone care.

You will be locked in this room without food, without water, until you expire and die. Obama authored such a bill and has supported it while every single member in the house and senate opposed this kind of macabre and draconian form of Justice.

Obama is the only man in both the house and senate, to fight for such a heartless method of capital punishment for Americans .

The most compelling argument to oppose this bill is that those on Death Row, were guilty of only a misdemeanor,

The crime of trespassing in their mother’s womb.

Imagine that.



Yes they are babies hence the amnesia and lack of muscle control and recognizing the mothers voice but expressed this way so you may better identify with the horror that people like Majik, Anne and many others here,

can ignore with a cold heart.

They may meet with such harsh, cruel and unusual punishment when they are judged someday. Until then, I rebuke them

with extreme prejudice


[edit on 2-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
'Roe' files . . wants 'justice' done . .

Posted: June 17, 2003
1:00 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

Talk about a group of certifiable nincompoops here is a guy trying to copyright a story in the public domain for 6 years! Sweet Jesus! If you took all those know-it-alls in a plane up to 10,000 feet and dropped them head first onto Stone Mountain in GA, I'd bet they would SPLIT the mountain!

The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels.

American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA. They went under the radar as Atheists and anti religionists . .

These people are really dangerous to civil society. They remind me most of the extremist flagellants of the middle ages. In a better world they could be confined for treatment.


[edit on 2/2/2009 by donwhite]

NSSM 200: Declassified Population Control Policy (updated)
IF YOU ARE WONDERING WHY the USA seems so involved in the population control of many Third World nations, read the entire National Security Study Memorandum, NSSM-200: www.hli.org/nssm-200.pdf, and a 2004 retrospective on the memo: www.hli.org/Kissinger%20Report%202004.pdf.

ADMINISTRATION ASKED TO END DECADES OLD US FOREIGN-TARGETED POPULATION CONTROL POLICY- The rarely-spoken of foreign-targeted US population control policy, NSSM 200, was given special public exposure at a Human Life International (HLI) press conference.

HLI addressed the 3-decades-old population control policy that was drawn up based on a 1974 memorandum by Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State during the administration of President Richard Nixon.

Kissinger's National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) was a confidential document until declassified in the early 1990's and is still unknown to most Americans who would highly likely never have supported such a policy.

The plan called for collusion among the U.S. government, the United Nations and non-governmental organizations such as International Planned Parenthood Federation. According to NSSM 200: "Throughout the implementation of the [population control] process, we have to make sure to hide our tracks and disguise our programs as altruistic... hiding the fact that we want access to their natural resources."


HLI has called upon the Bush Administration to formally rescind the Kissinger population control policy and withdraw related funding from the United Nations.

[NSSM 200, and the US population control policy which came from it, especially targeted thirteen countries for depopulation, countries which, if allowed to increase sufficiently in population, were seen to be able to challenge US economic superiority. Billions of US taxpayer dollars have since gone into funding population control in countries around the globe.

HLI explains in a release that NSSM 200 justified the radical population control methods it implemented by claiming it would: 1) prevent developing nations from becoming politically powerful; 2) protect U.S. investments in these countries; 3) maintain U.S. access to these countries' natural resources; 4) limit the number of young people in these countries, who are more likely to challenge existing social and political norms.

The press conference was held at the National Press Club in Washington DC, and featured leaders from several of the 13 nations targeted by NSSM 200. These leaders discussed the repercussions their countries had experienced as a result of the secret population control agenda contained in the memo.

"Recent articles in Newsweek and Parade magazines demonstrate that the 'need' for population control is nothing more than an over-hyped myth. The time has come for U.S. government policy to formally acknowledge this same basic truth," said T. J. Euteneuer, president of HLI. "For the past 30 years, billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have gone to fund population control programs- this, too, must come to an end."

[8Dec04, LifeSiteNews.com] See LifeSite's NSSM 200 page: www.lifesite.net...
[Previous LifeSiteNews.com reports:

PRESIDENT BUSH SURPRISES PRO-LIFE LEADERS BY SELECTING KISSINGER FOR 9-11 POST
www.lifesite.net...;

AUSTRALIAN NOBEL WINNER RECOMMENDED USING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS FOR 'OVERPOPULATION':

NSSM 200
National Security Study Memorandum 200
Blueprint for world de-population and western domination
NSSM 200 - blueprint for de-population - Interim Newspaper - July 1998

Excerpt - The population-control ideology and the means to achieve it can be found in a U.S. executive-level government document entitled National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), published in 1974 and declassified in 1989. Although this plan of action was to be activated in developing countries, it was designed as a two-edged sword that could be swung with equal determination in both developed and developing countries alike.

The document was signed by Henry Kissinger and directed to the secretaries of defense, agriculture and central intelligence, the deputy secretary of state, and the administrator of the Agency for International Development, with a copy to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The focus of the study was the "international political and economic implications of population growth."

The UN, the IMF, the World Bank and abortion - Interim Newspaper - January 1999

Excerpt - The official policy of the U.S. regarding population control in foreign policy is spelled out in NSSM 200. The Memorandum became the official guide to U.S. foreign policy on Nov. 26, 1975 and has not been replaced since.

NSSM 200, subtitled "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," warned that increasing populations in developing countries threatened U.S. strategic, economic, and military interests. Read the National Security Study Memorandum, NSSM-200: www.hli.org/nssm-200.pdf, and a 2004 retrospective on the memo: www.hli.org/Kissinger%20Report%202004.pdf.

Eugenics, an American Dynasty, and Roe v. Wade
by Rebecca R. Messall, Esq.

This article is taken from its fuller version in the fall 2004 issue of Human Life Review, available in its entirety at www.humanlifereview.com.

Everyone knows that the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion legalized abortion, but almost no one knows that legal abortion was a strategy by eugenicists, as early as 1939, to "genetically improve" the population by "reducing it".

In writing his opinion, Roe's author, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, relied directly and indirectly on the work of these British and American eugenicists.
Eugenics is easiest to describe as being the Darwin-based theory behind the Nazis' plans to "breed" a race of human thoroughbreds. After Hitler, eugenic theorists advocated global control over who has babies, and how many. It has been called "population thinking". America's richest families promoted eugenicists and their many social initiatives, including Roe.

One of the clearest links between the eugenics movement and U.S. abortion policy is visible in the American Eugenics Society's (AES) 1956 membership records, which includes a Planned Parenthood co-founder, Margaret Sanger, and at least 2 presidents, William Vogt and Alan Guttmacher.

The AES had an ugly history of multiple ties to prominent Nazis in Germany. AES members assisted Hitler in crafting the 1933 German sterilization laws. Unbelievably, in 1956 -- after WWII -- the AES membership list included Dr. Otmar Frieherr Von Verschuer, who had supervised the ongoing "science" experiments of Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz.

The AES lobbied successfully for involuntary sterilization laws in the USA, which claimed an estimated 63,000 victims. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld those laws in Buck v. Bell, which was cited in Roe. Some states have recently extended official regret and/or apology for those laws.

...Politicians in both political parties who position themselves...in favor of Roe, align themselves with a host of eugenic strategies and fall-out, which include human embryo-destructive exploitation (nick-named "stem cell research"), the trafficking in fetal body parts, and euthanasia.

They also align themselves with the Rockefeller family dynasty, who funded eugenic scientists decades before Hitler put eugenic theories into practice and who supported many of the leaders of the American Eugenics Society.

The Rockefellers' support for eugenics began early in the twentieth century, and included support for the Eugenics Record Office. In 1913, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. ("Junior") incorporated a group, which became a major force in supporting birth control clinics and played a pioneering role in the modern field of population studies.

As early as 1922, the Rockefeller Foundation sent money to fund German eugenics. Of Germany's 20-plus Kaiser Wilhelm Institute science centers, Rockefeller money built or supported 3 which "made their mark for medical murder" under the Nazis.

One institute was for brain research. During part of Hitler's rule, it employed Hermann J. Muller, a Rockefeller-funded American socialist and geneticist. It later received "brains in batches of 150-250" derived from Holocaust victims.

Another center, the Eugenics Institute, listed its 1935 activities as follows: "the training of SS doctors; racial hygiene training; expert testimony for the Reich Ministry of the Interior on cases of dubious heritage; collecting and classifying skulls from Africa; studies in race crossing; and epxerimental genetic pathology."

Junior began funding Margaret Sanger in 1924. Surely he knew of her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization. In it, Sanger railed against New York's Archbishop, calling his orthodoxy a "menace to civilization". Yet she admired Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, whose ideal she called "the rational breeding of human beings".

She [Sanger] said the Neo-Malthusians considered birth control as "the very pivot of civilization". She said, "Birth control...is really the greatest and most truly eugenic program".

When Frederick Osborn became president of the AES in 1946, the AES' journal, Eugenical News, published a state-by-state report on sterilizations. It also reported on the opposition by [religious groups]. In Alabama: "Whenever sterilization bills are introduced, [these groups] descend upon the capital in numbers...and attack the bill as "against the will of God" and "an attack on the American home".

In Colorado, a 1945 bill failed passage due to "vigorous opposition". In Pennsylvania: "The [religious groups] immediately sent a letter to every legislator directing him to oppose the bill, and they were visited...in their home communities".

Frederick Osborn was put in charge of the Population Council, a group organized and funded by John D. Rockefeller III.

In 1956, Osborn addressed the British eugenics society. Osborn affirmed his belief in "Galton's dream" and proposed what he called "voluntary unconscious selection" by changing laws, customs and social expectations. To accomplish this voluntary unconscious selection, he advocated an appeal to the idea of "wanted" children.

In 1968, when many people wrongly believed that the eugenics movement had disappeared, Osborn published a book, The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society. Osborn asserted that "less intelligent women" could be convinced to reduce their births voluntarily, in order to "further both the social and biological imporvement of the population". He utilized a euphemism for racial minorities by urging that contraception be targeted to people "at the lower economic and educational level". Osborn recommended disguising the reason for making birth control "equally available". He said: "Measures for improving the hereditary base of intelligence and character are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics".

Writing his Roe opinion five years after Osborn's book, Blackmun's first four introductory paragraphs mention nothing about the newly decreed right of privacy in support of abortion, but he does state: "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not so simplify the problem".

Blackmun directly cited the two men closely connected to the British and the American eugenics societies: Glanville Williams is cited twice; Christopher Tietze is cited three times and Lawrence Lader's book, Abortion, is cited seven times.

The mystery of Blackmun's curious opening paragraphs in Roe may be solved by Lader's book, Abortion, which contains panicked rhetoric such as the following:
"The frightening mathematics of populations growth overwhelms piecemeal solutions and timidity. No government, particularly of an underdeveloped nation, can solve a population crisis without combining legalized abortion with a permanent, intensive contraception campaign."

"...Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance."

Glanville Williams (1911-1997) was a Eugenics Society Fellow in England. Before citing Williams in Roe, Blackmun would have seen Williams explicit reference to eugenics:
"Contraception and Eugenics: The problem does not only concern the limits of subsistence, though this in itself is one of sufficient magnitude. There is, in addition, the problem of eugenic quality. We now have a large body of evidence that since industrialization, the upper stratum of society fails to replace itself, while the population as a whole is increased by excess births among the lower and uneducated classes."

...Blackmun acknowledged the...scientific view that life begins at the moment of conception, but thereafter Blackmun relied on books and articles espousing the science of eugenics. In fact, one book contains a sub-heading titled, "The New Eugenics", and cites two men who can be described as maniacal eugenicists who were seemingly paranoid about a deteriorating human heredity. Blackmun cited an article, "The New Biology and the Future of Man", which speaks for itself:

"Taken together, [artificial gestation, genetic engineering, suspended animation]...they constitute a new phase in human life in which man takes over deliberate control of his own evolution...There is a qualitative change to progress when man learns to create himself...a reworking of values is required...Submission to supernatural power is not adaptive to a world in which man himself controls even his own biological future...What counts is awareness of the unmistakable new fact that in general new biology is handing over to us the wheel with which to steer directly the future evolution of man."

In March 1973, two months after Roe was handed down, Osborn's American Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology. The announcement said: "The change of name of the Society does not coincide with any change of its interests or policies." The group had already changed the name of its journal in 1968 from Eugenics Quarterly, to Social Biology. Commenting on the new title, Osborn remarked: "The name was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance."

This, then, is the ideological basis of the abortion industry

MYTH - The world is overpopulated!
…It is easy to believe that the world is overpopulated because human beings have always lived in crowded conditions and do so at the present time. We do so not because of lack of space on the planet but because of the need to work together, to buy and sell, to give and receive goods and services from one another. Our cities and towns have always thronged with people and traffic – horses, donkeys, and camels in ages past, motor vehicles today.

All the people of the world could move into the state of Texas and form a giant city with about the same population density as some large cities today (6 billion population divided by 262,000 square miles of land in Texas equals about 23,000 per sq mile).

Because we crowd together and because the earth is large relative to our needs, we leave most of it unoccupied. Human beings actually use no more than one to three percent of the land area of the earth for their urban areas, roads, railroads, and airports, according to experts such as Julian Simon and others. All of the people of the world could move into the state of Texas and form a giant city with about the same population density as some large cities today (6 billion population divided by 262,000 square miles of land in Texas equals about 23,000 per square mile). Inner London contains 21,000 per square mile and Paris has 50,000, according to Encyclopedia Britannica online.

There was indeed a sudden spurt in world population growth during the 1960s and 1970s. It was the result of an abrupt decline in the world death rate due to the discovery of antibiotics and improved sanitation. The birth rate was actually declining quite markedly but was still greater than the death rate. That relationship is now changing: death rates are now rising in many countries as populations grow, and birth rates have declined below death rates in many countries.

According to the UN Population Division, 44 percent of the world’s population now lives in countries where birth rates are too low…The United States is one of these countries. Our birth rate fell from 24.3 per thousand population in 1950-55 to 14.6 in 1998. Worldwide, the average woman today bears fewer than three children in her lifetime. This is also the average for Asia and Latin America. In Europe and Japan the one-child family is standard. If present trends continue, there will be 100 million fewer people in Europe fifty years from now (than there are today) and 21 million fewer in Japan…

MYTH – There is not enough food to feed all the people!
…World food population has increased considerably faster than population in recent decades. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) announced in 1996: "Globally food supplies have more than doubled in the last 40 years.6…at a global level, there is probably no obstacle to food production rising to meet demand.7" In July 2000 the FAO announced: "…remarkable progress has been made over the last three decades towards feeding the world…In developing countries…the proportion of the population living in a chronic state of undernourishment was cut in half…FAO anticipates that this progress will ontinue.8"

On a per capita basis, food availability has increased remarkably, according to FAO:

Calories Consumed Per Person Per Day
1964/1966 1995-1997
World 2357 2761
Industrial countries 2945 3374
Developing countries 2053 2626
[Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, Technical Interim Report, Apr 2000, p.23]

These figures may be compared with the commonly accepted standard of 2500 calories per person per day for an adequate diet. And in 2/2002, the FAO carried an article on its website about "Obesity in Developing Countries"!www.npg.org...

The World -- Subtract Billions; Demographic 'Bomb' May Only Go 'Pop!'
E-MAIL Print Single-Page Reprints Share
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy DONALD G. MCNEIL JR.
Published: August 29, 2004
REMEMBER the population bomb, the fertility explosion set to devour the world's food and suck up or pollute all its air and water? Its fuse has by no means been plucked. But over the last three decades, much of its Malthusian detonation power has leaked out.

Birthrates in developed countries from Italy to Korea have sunk below the levels needed for their populations to replace themselves; the typical age of marriage and pregnancy has risen, and the use of birth control has soared beyond the dreams of Margaret Sanger and the nightmares of the Vatican.

The threat is now more regional than global, explosive only in places like India and Pakistan. Ever since 1968, when the United Nations Population Division predicted that the world population, now 6.3 billion, would grow to at least 12 billion by 2050, the agency has regularly revised its estimates downward. Now it expects population to plateau at nine billion.

Where did those billions go? Millions of babies have died, a fraction of them from AIDS, far more from malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia, even measles. More millions have been aborted, either to avoid birth or, as in China and India, to avoid giving birth to a girl. (Cheap ultrasound technology has in the last decade made it easy to determine a child's sex.)

But even AIDS and abortion are drops in the demographic bucket. The real missing billions are the babies who were simply never conceived. They weren't conceived because their would-be elder brothers and sisters survived, or because women's lives improved. In the rich West, Mom went to college and decided that putting three children through graduate school would be unaffordable. In the poor Eastern or Southern parts of the globe, Mom found a sweatshop job and didn't need a fourth or fifth child to fetch firewood. query.nytimes.com...

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

I was completely ‘Pro-Choice’. I had bought the whole ‘women’s rights’ thing, completely agreed with ‘the constitutional right of a woman’s freedom to choose’…and I was just fine with that.

Sure took the pressure off of me, a guy, interested in sex who had been raised in the era of, “Hey, you get a girl pregnant, you marry her!” But times had changed. Now abortions could be had legally if a doctor determined the life of the mother was in danger. Girls in college told me what a joke that was. They’d go in to see a doctor, tell him they’re pregnant, and the conversation went like this:

Doctor: “You’re feeling suicidal?” (hint hint, wink nudge.)

Girl: “Oh. Yeah… suicidal. I’m feeling suicidal.”

Doctor: “All right, then.”

Abortion as a method of birth control became the norm. I knew a few girls who had had as many as five of them by the time they were twenty-five. And they seemed fine on it…mostly because everyone around them was telling them that they should feel fine about it.

So this abortion thing was pretty d--- convenient for a guy. And for a time, I was quite the Lothario. I kept a roster of seven girlfriends. Why seven? I don’t know…maybe Lucky Number 7 (yeah maybe)…or seven days in a week (more likely). But I would meet someone new, and I would simply go through my list…and kick one girl off. I would simply stop calling her. And to my great shame…this was my chosen method to ‘decathect.’ In retrospect, I wish I’d had the ... utter honesty in my early relationships; but I was a drug-addled, post college idiot and that was the best I could muster. This was my m.o. and I knew I wasn’t alone…not by a long shot. We were proud products of the Love Generation.

Jump forward thirty years and Nancy Pelosi tells us yesterday that ‘family planning’ is now a fiscal responsibility to ‘reduce costs.’ Her defenders will say that NO, she’s talking about condoms and sex education. But anyone with a mind who’s been around for a while knows that ‘family planning’ is code for abortion.

She is asking for 200 million dollars for Family Planning Services to ‘expand the economy.’ These are taxpayer dollars, dontcha know. Your money. She says states are in terrible fiscal crisis and it’s ‘part of what we do for childrens’ health and education’…” I’m trying to figure out how ripping an unborn child from it’s womb is aiding in it’s health or education, but maybe I’m missing something here.

I’ve heard it argued that a fetus is not a baby because it could not survive outside the womb on its own. But what about three-day old baby? Or even a two week old baby? If you set it down on the floor and leave it alone…will it survive on its own? Or will it die? So what’s the cut-off for determining whether it’s a baby or not?

It really comes down to this: when does life begin? When is it a baby? At the point of conception? First trimester? Third? At the point of actual delivery? When the umbilical cord is cut? Two weeks afterward? When?

I’m telling you, once you draw that line and say this is the moment it’s a human being…you’ve lost the argument. Because it’s arbitrary. On this date it’s a baby, but yesterday it was just a bunch of cells…this blob of a nothing and you can do anything you want with it, it’s okay. Babies have been born premature in the second trimester and lived. Happens all the time. So please, somebody tell me how is taking a baby and delivering all but the head, then plunging a tube into its skull and sucking the brains out…how is that not murder? This is what happens in partial-birth abortions, and unfortunately, this happens all the time, too.

And we as a nation…as a people…are all right with this?

I understand the hate that is leveled at someone like me who reminds people of this. To contemplate the reality is daunting. The act is horrendous and made more tragic when you consider the numbers of babies that are being disposed of every day.

Our willingness to tolerate such a holocaust says volumes of how our entire culture has been coarsened. How life itself has been cheapened.

We are told to have sex any time we feel the urge. Condoms are handed out in grade schools. Promiscuity is not only condoned, it’s tacitly encouraged.

Illegitimacy has enslaved an entire underclass of our citizens, relegating them to government assistance for a lifetime, bankrupting cities, and holding an entire subculture down in dependent despair. But if you should get pregnant and it’s just not a ‘convenient’ time for you, don’t worry, there are Family Planning Services, funded, thanks to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, by your tax dollars.

That inconvenient fetus can be surgically ripped from its uterine moorings, ground up and tossed into the trash like so much garbage. Problem solved, and the mother can resume her egocentric lifestyle. But the scars on that woman’s soul will never quite heal.

I’m a man, but I’ve got them on mine.

I’ve heard from liberals the following quote: “We want abortion to be legal…but rare.” And I ask, Why rare? What’s wrong with abortion, that you think it should be a rare occurrence?

I’ve had moles removed from my skin. Doctors don’t tell us that a mole removal should be rare. So what’s with this ‘rare’ business?
Or is it a tacit agreement that abortion…is plain wrong?

And in the double-standard department… Will somebody tell me how it is that Scott Peterson gets convicted of a double homicide – his wife, and his unborn son – and yet it’s not murder if a doctor does basically the same thing in a clinic?

Explain it to me; why is it murder in the one case, and totally acceptable in the other?

You tell me, “HEY! It’s my body, I’ve got the right to do whatever I want with my body!!” Well, no you don’t.

You don’t have the legal right to prostitute yourself (Nevada excepted). You don’t have a right to pick up an axe and lop off your boyfriend’s head if he gives you lip. You don’t have the right to murder. And your anger will bring you back to the its-not-a-baby, it’s-my-body mobius.

Illogic without end.

Try this exercise: Every time you hear someone use the phrase “…a woman’s right to choose…” mentally complete the phrase with the following words – “…to kill her baby.”

That’s what the argument’s about. A woman’s right to kill her baby.

In the extreme cases of incest…rape…severe birth defects. Hey, I don’t know. I don’t have all the answers. That’s a tough one. But there has got to be a better way than abortion.

Adoption comes to mind. With all the thousands of couples out there unable to make a baby…doesn’t it seem the right thing to do…to give birth and give the unwanted baby up for adoption into a loving family?

Just a thought.

I saw my daughter’s ultrasound when she was at four weeks. All I saw was this little pulsating cylinder about the size of my little fingernail. Each little vibration was a heartbeat. Yes, a heart barely formed; cells still differentiating into form and function…but her little heart was just wailing away. I burst into tears.

And I realized… I was beholding an utter miracle. The miracle of life. And I also realized that from the very first merger of cell into cell, and the first divisions…that the whole miracle of life was from that point on struggling against all odds to become a fully-realized human being.

I don’t mean to preach. I’m just telling you what I have come to know, and that I know that I know. The unborn fetus is a baby in development…and to end that life prematurely is to murder that life.

I truly wish that I had had this conviction way back when…when I was only concerned about my selfish convenience of the day. But I didn’t want to know, I didn’t want to think about it. It was inconvenient to think about it.

How ironic that the ‘Love’ Generation should spawn such a culturally accepted abomination as abortion.

[Tags: abortion, family planning, nancy pelosi, partial birth abortion
Posted Jan 27th 2009 at 3:47 pm in Featured Story, Politics | 310 Comments; Gary Graham, bighollywood.breitbart.com...]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Hey, I just got a bill from ATS for $700.00 address to a Mr Aarmecchi for EXCESSIVE USE of bandwidth!

Do you know anything about this?

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Hey, I just got a bill from ATS for $700.00 address to a Mr Aarmecchi for EXCESSIVE USE of bandwidth!

Do you know anything about this?

So call the Bandwidth Police

second line





[edit on 2-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Annee


Your belief has nothing to do with what you said.Which was,

If you never existed you would never know what it is to be dead.

A baby in the womb exists as a life force.Therefore it knows what it is to be dead.

Your belief does relate to the fact that you have contradicted yourself though.

Physical is simply a temporary created "host" for an eternal energy being/soul to have an experience.

So which is it?
Is the baby non existant or is it a physical living soul?


And I think you'll find that this,

Man created death as something horrible and something to mourn over

was down to the Catholics.Many cultures did,and some still do,see death in the manner you described.

"Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra- uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludricrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable auspices." –- Editorial California Medicine ,

Quotations taken from Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Summary Judgment, Planned Parenthood of Centrol New Jersey v. Verniero, No. 97-6170 (AET) (D.N.J. Apr 22, 1998) and Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Exists or Does Not Exist a Genuine Issue, Planned Parenthood of Centrol New Jersey v. Verniero,

"My heart got callous to the fact that I was a murderer, but that baby lying in a cold bowl educated me as to what abortion really was." -- Dr. David Brewer

"Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." -- "Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness", Planned Parenthood Federation of America (pamphlet),

"We have reached a point in this particular technology where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current." -- Dr. Warren Hern, abortionist, at a meeting of the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians in San Diego,

Originally posted by DantesLost

was down to the Catholics.Many cultures did,and some still do,see death in the manner you described.

If you uread the first paragraph in this POST, it sums up Ms Annee, Majik and the rest of the gutless cowards the merchants of death the destroyers of destiny for they are themselves

Children of the grave

reply to post by Annee

Why don't you ask the child. What an unbelievable mind set.

Oh, I see. You are willing to admit that the child should have a choice after birth, but it is alright to kill the child before birth, where, of course, the child has no way to choose life. How hypocritical and inconsistent that philosophy is. In effect, choice is ok some times but not others?