Maybe this will change a mind [W:223, 278,342, 805]

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

And the Washinton Post ignored the fact that Illionios already had a born alive law in place when the new legislation was put to a vote in the Illinois sentence.

Other states did not have the same law however, so yes , some
"born alive" infants were not given care.

That was why a Federal law worded like the Illinois law was impotant.
And Obama said he would have supported a born alive bill that was worded like the Illinois law.

Now there is a federal born alive bill and infants that are born alive after an abortion attemp are given care.
And I am glad the Federal law was passed because giving a born alive infant care is the humane thing to do.

So, assuming you actually had a look at the link, you continue to support Obama's revisionist stance even though the fact checkers at the Washington Post basically called him out as a liar. You'd rather support a campaign statement than an unbiased review of the facts and you still promote the lie the campaign's statement tried to play.

Duly noted.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

No in reality on planet Earth "ZEF" means nothing and confirms the absolute ignorance of anyone using it in earnest.

And here is our ZEF hater again, and again he is busy denying reality and fact.

ZEF - Definition by AcronymFinder

What does ZEF stand for?

What does ZEF stand for?

ZEF - What does ZEF stand for?

ZEF abbreviation stands for Zygote Embryo Fetus

What does ZEF Stand For in Medical and Science acronyms? 2 meanings of ZEF

All of these websites clearly mention that Zygote, Embryo, Fetus is abbreviated by ZEF and that ZEF is an acronym for Zygote, Embryo, Fetus. You are just not right with your comment.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

That is not ripping them apart.





That is not ripping apart infants. There are no infants in uteruses. None.zero.zip.zilch.nada.




Agreed.

So you don't note whether or not you agree that a fetus that is alive when separated from his/her mother is an infant. Any answer this time?

Secondly, I didn't say a single word about "infants in uteruses" - that's your strawman attempt to deflect. I said a fetus separated from his/her mother and still alive. For someone who's a supposed expert on abortion, you seem to be totally dumbfounded by the idea that there are occasions when an attempted abortion results in a live birth.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Newly widowed father sings Beatles classic 'Blackbird' to newborn son shortly before his death | abc7.com

In a flash this guy lost his wife and then his baby.

For those who are more concerned with their own lives than the lives of those that are being brought into the world, please, just read the story and watch the video.

I think it's heartbreaking this is in the abortion forum. My heart goes out to this family, but this story has little to do with abortion.

It's in the abortion forum because one of the more common justifications for abortion is that the baby isn't human at 24 weeks (or much later than that, according to some). My thought was that this imagery would invoke a little understanding in those who deny prenatal life.

Unfortunately, I was wrong.

I must've missed where a pro-choicer said a fetus isn't human. I've never seen that. Regardless, the vast majority of abortions don't occur this late in the game, and the few that do are for *major* health reasons. Women that abort electively usually do so as soon as possible, because they don't want to be pregnant in the first place!!!

If you can find a guy singing to an 8 week-old embryo on life support *outside* the womb, maybe *that* would be appropriate for the abortion forum. Good luck... :roll:

I find it odd that of all the pro-life responses, I have yet to see one comment regarding the actual *** born baby*** in the story. Where is the concern for HIS pain and suffering? Hooked up to all those tubes and monitors, being poked and prodded? What about the life long health issues he likely would have to live with? What about the brain trauma and possible retardation from oxygen deprivation? Where is the concern for *those* issues? The only concern I do see is for *life* in & of itself, with very little regard for quality.

Personally, THAT is what I find disgusting.

Would it have been better to let this little guy go peacefully with his mother? I don't know. He was obviously very much wanted.

What I do know is that life at any cost is not always the right way to go. Each mother or family are the best situated to make **choices** for themselves. It's not *my* place to say.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

And here is our ZEF hater again, and again he is busy denying reality and fact.

Actually, you are the one that hates "ZEFs" as evidenced by your use of a moronic and bigoted slur only employed by radical pro-aborts.

Crowdsourced sites you find on Google are not legitimate scientific references.

I must've missed where a pro-choicer said a fetus isn't human. I've never seen that.

Try looking with your eyes, on this forum; pro-aborts here say that every day.

 

[sangha]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Err. Hmm. I revise my previous post which was in error. The intent was to assert that an abortion to save the mother's life should not be illegal.

In that case, you are saying that ripping apart fetuses should be legal.

Congratulations! You're just as supportive of the practice of dismembering fetuses

 

[sangha]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

The left seems to like the facts checking of the Washington Post, so I'll rely on it here.

Did Obama deny rights to infants who survive abortion? - The Washington Post

From my reading, it basically calls the President a liar as it relates to his revisionist stance on the legislation that made it's way through the Illinois legislature.

Here's what you said in your earlier post:

Is it not also true that President Obama, when a State Senator in Illinois, approved of a measure that would allow for third trimester abortions that effectively killed a living "infant" by crushing their skull when an abortion resulted in a live birth unwanted by the mother?

You've gone from dishonestly accusing the president of supporting the killing of born babies to saying he lied about a law.

Why don't you just admit that your original claim was nothing but a hackish lie?

 

[sangha]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

So, assuming you actually had a look at the link, you continue to support Obama's revisionist stance even though the fact checkers at the Washington Post basically called him out as a liar. You'd rather support a campaign statement than an unbiased review of the facts and you still promote the lie the campaign's statement tried to play.

Duly noted.

You lied when you said

President Obama, when a State Senator in Illinois, approved of a measure that would allow for third trimester abortions that effectively killed a living "infant" by crushing their skull when an abortion resulted in a live birth unwanted by the mother?

You have no credibility to accuse others of lying

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

In that case, you are saying that ripping apart fetuses should be legal.

Congratulations! You're just as supportive of the practice of dismembering fetuses

I'd like to think of it as saving the mother's endangered life, rather than that. Also, it is presently the law of the land. There's no getting around that.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Secondly, I didn't say a single word about "infants in uteruses" - that's your strawman attempt to deflect. I said a fetus separated from his/her mother and still alive. For someone who's a supposed expert on abortion, you seem to be totally dumbfounded by the idea that there are occasions when an attempted abortion results in a live birth.

The initial claim was that infants are being ripped apart in abortion.

I'm flattered that you think I am an expert, but I am not.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

You lied when you said


You have no credibility to accuse others of lying

I don't have to qualify the general lack of credibility of anything you post. It's well reported and known. I did, however, ask a question, which you noted, and then clarified it later with a link to the facts as presented. I didn't lie about anything but the President surely did - but then, his lack of credibility is about as evident as that of your posts.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

The initial claim was that infants are being ripped apart in abortion.

I'm flattered that you think I am an expert, but I am not.

Clearly.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

So, assuming you actually had a look at the link, you continue to support Obama's revisionist stance even though the fact checkers at the Washington Post basically called him out as a liar. You'd rather support a campaign statement than an unbiased review of the facts and you still promote the lie the campaign's statement tried to play.

Duly noted.

From the Illinois Abortion Act of 1975:

720 ILCS 510/6: Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...FFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Actually, you are the one that hates "ZEFs" as evidenced by your use of a moronic and bigoted slur only employed by radical pro-aborts.

Crowdsourced sites you find on Google are not legitimate scientific references.



Try looking with your eyes, on this forum; pro-aborts here say that every day.

I do not hate ZEF's, I just hate typing out Zygote, Embryo, Fetus every time I want to write those three words.

And I think, or no, I know that I am a very moderate pro-choice person (because pro-abortion is bull crap because there that IMHO does not exist). And the use of moronic and bigoted is the last resort of someone who is out of facts and reasonable options.

An acronym finder is not crowdsourced but it is indicative of the fact that people use the acronym/abbreviation ZEF for zygote, embryo, fetus.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

From the Illinois Abortion Act of 1975:



720*ILCS*510/**Illinois Abortion Law of 1975..

Minnie, I do love some Pro-Life Organization Propaganda. Thanks for pointing out THE TRUTH, which Obama himself pointed out.

David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."

"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.

In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods.

Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions.

"There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster."

 

[sangha]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I'd like to think of it as saving the mother's endangered life, rather than that. Also, it is presently the law of the land. There's no getting around that.

Regardless of what you like to think, the fact remains that abortions done for medical necessity tend to be late-term abortions which are the abortions where the fetus is dismembered. And you support the legality of that dismemberment.

There's no getting around that.

 

[sangha]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I don't have to qualify the general lack of credibility of anything you post. It's well reported and known. I did, however, ask a question, which you noted, and then clarified it later with a link to the facts as presented. I didn't lie about anything but the President surely did - but then, his lack of credibility is about as evident as that of your posts.

It was a "do you still beat your wife" question and no one is fooled by your dishonest denials..

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Regardless of what you like to think, the fact remains that abortions done for medical necessity tend to be late-term abortions which are the abortions where the fetus is dismembered. And you support the legality of that dismemberment.

There's no getting around that.

As do you, so it would appear.

 

[sangha]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

As do you, so it would appear.

yes, I do but unlike you, I'm honest about it. I don't pretend to be better than others because they support the law.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

yes, I do but unlike you, I'm honest about it. I don't pretend to be better than others because they support the law.

I never pretended to be better than anyone. You must have me mixed up with someone else.

I just think that it's a darn shame that so many humans (or potential humans if you prefer) are being murdered by abortion every year, year in and year out, and think that there must be a better solution than to continue down this path.

Unless I'm reading you wrong, you see nothing wrong with this, and would prefer to belittle those who have this opinion as being deficient somehow.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I do not hate ZEF's, I just hate typing out Zygote, Embryo, Fetus every time I want to write those three words.

And I think, or no, I know that I am a very moderate pro-choice person (because pro-abortion is bull crap because there that IMHO does not exist). And the use of moronic and bigoted is the last resort of someone who is out of facts and reasonable options.

An acronym finder is not crowd-sourced but it is indicative of the fact that people use the acronym/abbreviation ZEF for zygote, embryo, fetus.

Wonder why A FEW pro-life deem it necessary to repeatedly attempt to undermine, in such an abject manner, the widely used term "ZEF" (by laypersons and professional alike)? What a waste of finger energy.

 

[RamFel]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Well, they are 2 very different things. You cannot compare a zygote to a human being/person.

You are the one who argues that zygotes have a right to life so there is no need to argue about the right of rocks to life, just like a zygote they do not have any right to life.

Oh yes they do have a right to life.

 

[RamFel]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

But banning abortion IS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO, if you want to shout I can do the same.

It ends with a the end of growth/gestation. What is not alive cannot be dead. Tissue dies but that does not mean that this is the same thing as "death". People, plants and animals die, cells who never had been "living" cannot die.

You are comparing live saving abortion due to medical reasons to the elective abortion in which the fetus is not a surviving baby.

So the silly appeal for emotion due to a case that has nothing to do with elective abortion but with a tragic death and a premature baby.

No, because it is not dead. It is alive and neither you, or the woman, or a doctor, judge, or the law has the right to KILL IT.

 

[sangha]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I never pretended to be better than anyone. You must have me mixed up with someone else.

Sure you did. Here's the quote

As opposed to pulling apart a living infant and scraping the remainders out of a uterus?



You really don't understand much, do you?

You compared "pulling apart a living infant" to supporting abortion, and now you're being dishonest and trying to claim it was judgement free.

And then there's the "You really understand much" comment, as if you understood what you were talking about with your reference to infants (since been proven to be an ignorant statement)

Unless I'm reading you wrong, you see nothing wrong with this, and would prefer to belittle those who have this opinion as being deficient somehow.

And you support the "pulling apart" of fetus' too. Do you see something wrong with your position?

Or does the hypocrisy go right over your head?

 

[Peter King]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Oh yes they do have a right to life.

Well, the supreme court, nature and reality would disagree with you.