Planned Parenthood endorses post-birth abortion

reply to post by Happy1


The end times - when everything that is wrong is considered right - and everything that is right is considered wrong.

reply to post by Happy1


First let me say WTF are you going on about. I did a Google search for pharma buying aborted babies
I couldn’t find anything that wasn’t a religious blog source. The big one was claims of Chinese selling aborted babies in pills.

If what you are saying is true you should post a link. To answer your question no I have no idea what pharma companies pay for aborted babies.

So give us some links happy.

Now do you have any idea what a botched aborted babies life expectancy or quality of life will be? I keep asking the same question but no one is willing to answer I can only guess as to why.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Any idiot knows not to use google - it's run by soros - use another link and look up the congressional record - I'm not going to do your pathetic homework for you .

Use .gov and learn something.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Oh, come on grimpachi - do you know who cass sunstien is? Have you ever read his "literature?"

Get busy, use the internet machine and learn something of the people's whose political/humanitarian policies you seem to agree with so much.

Defend their policies as a whole - use their quotes.

Reply to post by tothetenthpower

Are you for real?

Planned Parenthood conducts roughly 28% of all abortions in the US (while abortions are only 3% of their total operations), making them the single biggest provider of abortions.

So, by saying they want to punt and leave it up to the doctors and parents is ducking the question when they are the doctors and the parents are their customers.

I wonder if she stomped her foot or winked a lot when delivering the response of "let's leave it up to the parents and doctors." You know, because PP might be open to postbirth abortions when they are the doctors.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Happy1


Sorry but I am not into backing up claims I do not believe or have not made. I will back up my own claims when I make them.

However I will give you a link to peek at. Even if you do not read them all you should read why they make an argument invalid. I think doing so will help your debating skills immensely.

list

BTW is there a reason you reply to yourself or feel the need to post twice replying to one post of mine? It is simply odd behavior IMO.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Not to you, just trying to reach the masses who are interested in learning something.

reply to post by Happy1


Well you certainly have a strange way of doing it. If you feel it your approach gives you best results then I wish you luck.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
My questions in earlier post have been ignored which is too bad.

I am thinking that if there was a baby that survived a botched abortion that trying to keep it alive would be the cruelest fait anyone could imagine. The developmental stage of a fetus at 24 weeks witch is the maximum amount of time one can legally wait till to have an abortion in Florida.

It seems to me life for anyone born under such circumstances would have a life of pain and misery that isn’t even considering the emotional trauma for them later in life. I believe life is precious but I also believe torture is inhumane. I do not think some people are considering the whole picture here and they should.

edit on 3-4-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Except that the Hippocratic oath is to preserve life not kill it due to inconvenience.

The Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history. Written in antiquity, its principles are held sacred by doctors to this day: treat the sick to the best of one's ability, preserve patient privacy, teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation, and so on. "The Oath of Hippocrates," holds the American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics (1996 edition), "has remained in Western civilization as an expression of ideal conduct for the physician." Today, most graduating medical-school students swear to some form of the oath, usually a modernized version. Indeed, oath-taking in recent decades has risen to near uniformity, with just 24 percent of U.S. medical schools administering the oath in 1928 to nearly 100 percent today.

In 400 BC (almost 2500 years ago), Hippocrates of Cos, the famous Greek physician who is generally considered the "Father of Medicine", crafted (by his own hand or through a pupil) what remains the most enduring tradition in all of medical history: The Hippocratic Oath. Variants of the oath, which established basic guidelines for medical ethics, are still taken today by virtually all graduating medical students. In its original form, we read the following:

www.abort73.com...

Hippocratic Oath: Classical VersionI swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

—Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.

www.pbs.org...

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.


I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work

Even in those days people knew the difference between healing people and euthanizing them.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I notice you are only concerned with keeping someone alive yet you do not seem to care if that life would be a living hell or not.

Since you do feel like answering the questions I asked several times. I wonder if you know what the term living hell is. The only conclusion I can come to is no one will answer because no one cares if condemn someone to a tortuous life as long as they can say yay look we upheld our religious morals but you will not be there to witness the pain and suffering your morals forced on someone.

Like so many who seem to care so much about the unborn s life but once it is in the world then it is someone else’s problem. Well hooray for the righteous soldiers of the church but I do not see how they can celebrate hose they condemn to living hell.


I may be completely wrong about the kind of life a 16 to 24 week botched abortion survivors life would be like but I do know they are nowhere near being fully developed even at week 24 weeks but hey maybe they will be lucky and only be mildly retarded or deformed the later they wait the better chance they have at development but at 16 weeks or even earlier I don’t think any amount of luck will be enough. I have a feeling if such a instance ever happened and they manage to survive till puberty they will be cursing those who thought this would be such a great idea that’s assuming they have the mental capacity to understand what led to their existence which is a huge maybe.

Well I am not sure what the ruling will be on this but I certainly hope they look at the whole picture and are not simply ruled by emotion. It seems like the only ones that will be happy if these lives are saved will be the pro-lifers. The ones who will be living those lives may not be so happy about it. I certainly wouldn’t want to have to live a life like that. I know a lot of people feel this is a religious imperative that doesn’t sway me because I am not religious I believe if any religion is even close to the truth it would be the ones that believe in reincarnation at least it follows some universal laws but that’s just my opinion.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

It's a pleasure to see you again. It looks like you've been in some battles. Please be careful. It probably won't be a problem for you, but in my case I could tell that I was getting just a little harsher and more aggressive as time went on. I've taken some breaks and that helped. But as I say, that's probably not something for you to worry about.

You've raised a couple of interesting issues. One, the selling of babies to Big Pharma. And two, the living hell issue.

I'd like you to check a post of mine from some time back. (The whole thread was on this issue) Phage and I were in a discussion and I finally discovered that fetal tissue was being sold to Big Pharma. I found catalog listings, price sheets, the whole business. www.abovetopsecret.com...

On the question of life being too miserable to want to continue. I sympathize with your desire to spare someone from suffering, but how can we know when death is the better choice? There have been times when I've wanted to kill myself, even took some steps, but things changed and I adapted. I know I'm babbling, but killing people for their own good scares me as a concept. Besides, how to we keep that from spreading to killing people for society's good?

You've got a good heart, but I'm not yet convinced.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Grimpachi

I notice you are only concerned with keeping someone alive yet you do not seem to care if that life would be a living hell or not.

You cannot know if that baby that survived the abortion process would have, if you will, a living hell or not, and I know personally a lovely young woman who survived and she is healthy and living a full life. Your argument is an excuse not a reality.

reply to post by charles1952

I'd like you to check a post of mine from some time back. (The whole thread was on this issue) Phage and I were in a discussion and I finally discovered that fetal tissue was being sold to Big Pharma.

Not only that, but live aborted babies are being experimented on for stem cell research. Live aborted babies. That is the living hell if the baby is not kept. But to me a baby that lives should be adopted not sent to the stem cell research lab.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Well hooray for the righteous soldiers of the church

The way I see it, better to be a righteous soldier of the Church than a self-righteous crusader for Progressive agendas and the death cult including the right to die.

Do you realize that most of these babies are left to die alone in trash cans or soiled linen closets? Did you read the testimony of the nurse who found aborted babies in the soiled linen closet? Yah you must be really on the right track regarding the suffering of little ones.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Do you ever wonder why abortion is not receiving the same kind of approval that it has in the last 2 decades?

It's because women are telling their now adult children that they once had an abortion - and very much regret it.

Adult children are now seeing that they, too, may have been aborted, if their mother hadn't given them a chance at life.

I'm one.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by James1982

 

Originally posted by James1982
If they try to abort the baby, and it survives,

Nobody here supports abortion of born babies, even those who survive botched abortions. This was never a debate, and the "family planning" representative never endorsed it if you actually watched the video.

As for "women murdering 1 year olds", no I don't support this, but then again we're not discussing murder, we're discussing abortions.

what exactly is a post-birth abortion, if not killing a baby that was alive outside the womb?

would you take an aborted featus and stomp on it? throw it to the ground, stomp it into tiny pieces under the heel of your boot? would you feed it to your pets? would you set it on fire? would you throw it in the air and shoot it?

if the answer is yes... then i'll just stop

if the answer is no, then why not? you say it's not a baby, it's nothing to you. so if it's nothing to you, why would you have a problem stomping on it? maybe because you realize it is actually a baby and it would disturb you to stomp on a baby?

reply to post by James1982


If anyone wants to learn something about the abortion agenda - I ask you to look into cass sunstien and his writings, and also margaret sanger and her eugenics program, which is responsible for the planned parenthood institution.

reply to post by James1982

Originally posted by James1982
what exactly is a post-birth abortion, if not killing a baby

Why are you asking this question when it was clearly answered in the post you responded to? Nobody here supports aborting born babies, the representative of Planned Parenthood did not endorse it. Try to actually read the posts again.

you say it's not a baby,

No I don't think Fertilized eggs are human beings. Babies who are born? given birth to? Then we're discussing what is clearly defined as independent human beings. Let me ask you a question. Is a Fertilized egg a human being? And if so, does the rights of the fertilized egg overrule the rights of the woman over her body? Get back to me will ya?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Why are you asking this question when it was clearly answered in the post you responded to? Nobody here supports aborting born babies, the representative of Planned Parenthood did not endorse it.

What an interesting statement. While the Planned Parenthood representative didn't tell people they should cut through a baby's spine with scissors, she was adamant that no law should be passed telling people they couldn't. Her position was "We're not telling you to kill your newborn, but if you want to, we believe that nobody should try to stop you." Not a very strong criticism of offing your kid, is it?

The law being proposed was, basically, that if a child was born alive despite an abortion attempt the child should recieve all necessary medical treatment including transport to a larger facility. She, and presumably Planned Parenthood, opposes that law.

In another post you wondered if there were examples of child born alive, then killed. There are. Just one abortionist, Kermit Gosnell, has been charged with the deaths of seven such babies and a mother. (That's twice the death count of all attacks on abortionists.) Witnesses say there were many more babies killed than that number.

Is a Fertilized egg a human being? And if so, does the rights of the fertilized egg overrule the rights of the woman over her body? Get back to me will ya?

Since we're getting into very contentious definitions here, let me rephrase your question and answer it.

At some point in it's deveopment, the baby (or fetus, if you prefer) acquires some rights. The foremost of those has to be the right to life. Basically, the kid is saying "Hey, out there. Don't mess with me and I'll be fine. When I'm older I'll thank you personally."

You choose to balance that against a woman's right to . . . what, exactly? A woman's right to not have to go through life with a difficult child? A right to not have to spend more money raising a kid than she wants to? You'll find those in the 42nd Amendment. The right to do whatever she wants without regard to the unique individual inside her? That outweighs the baby's right?

Southern Guardian, we will find situations on the fringe where decisions are harder, but remember "Hard cases make bad law." If your position, like Planned Parenthood's, is "A woman can do whatever she wants with (and to) her child, even after it's born, I think you're staking out an extreme and unpopular piece of terrain to defend.

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles

I am very thankful to see a response from you. Generally I can depend on a reasoned discussion with you and that makes it much easier for me to understand the topics. I also had to step away from this topic for a while out of frustration and until I had seen your response I had planned to simply abandon this thread because no one seemed to be interested in examining the implications.

I did check take link you provided and I actually have more questions on that subject now however I would like to stay with the issue here if possible because I do not believe the two issues are related necessarily. It does raise other questions though and appreciate that you provided a link so I can look into it.

I do understand that people go through periods where death seems preferable than life I have experienced my share as well. I do think there is a distinction to be made between suicidal tendencies and what one can expect for future quality of life. I have seen this on the battlefield with those who have been wounded I myself was gravely wounded where had I known the full extent of my injuries probably would have wondered off in the confusion to bleed out but that is as close to this issue as I can relate on a personal level.

As far as I know this threads issue is a theoretical one as another poster pointed out there are no cases of botched abortions where the fetus lived outside the womb. I am making the distinction of legal abortions here which defines that the latest an abortion will be performed is at 24 weeks with the knowledge that most are done between 16 and 20 weeks. @4 requires some special circumstance.

My primary concern in this matter is the quality of life a child brought into the world under these circumstances can expect. It is my understanding that in the past where children have been born at 23-24 weeks are called micro premise and their survivability has increased due to medical advances but the survivability for before 24 weeks has not increased. Further concern is that those who have survived were brought into the world with great care nothing like the procedure of an abortion which would be damaging to them in itself. Those at 24 weeks are expected to have health problems however the earlier the procedure is done their development is far less complete.

My question is at what point do we consider prolonging someone’s life as cruel and unusual. There really isn’t much I can compare the circumstances to. I lost a friend to cancer who wound up taking her own life at the end but she had full knowledge to make that decision. I still have questions about this issue concerning what their quality of life will be that have not been answered. I have not made up my mind on the issue due to the lack of information but as I stated before I do not believe in torture and that is a major concern of mine that I would need answered before holding an opinion as to what the right thing to do would be.


With respect
Grim