• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Is Samuel Armas

Life begins at conception, so unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected.

Who says? Rights are a man-made convention. Our govt does not recognize rights for the unborn. Has nothing to do with scientific classification.
 
This ignore function works great. I'm glad I don't have to see a woman desperately trying to justify murdering children. That is disgusting in the extreme.
 
The decision in Roe v. Wade was wrong and should be overturned. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the right to privacy defended in Roe v. Wade is "utterly idiotic" and should not be considered binding precedent: "There is no right to privacy [in the US Constitution]." [153] [154] In his dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that an abortion "is not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution..." [49] Furthermore, the 14th Amendment bars states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [155] The Supreme Court overreached in Roe v. Wade when it excluded unborn children from the class of "persons."

There are more than a dozen precedents that uphold reproductive and familial and medical privacy. All found Constitutional. Are you planning on giving up your medical privacy?

But feel free to propose a legal basis for the recognition of the unborn as equal and recognizing their rights. Of course, it cannot be based on scientific classification...otherwise corpses would also have rights.

The born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law. If you see our govt and SCOTUS relegating women back to 2nd class citizens again, without our Constitutional rights superseded by the unborn...let's see some legal justification that works under the Constitution?

Anyway, RvW doesnt stand alone, it's upheld by those precedents.
 
Here's the true story behind the picture:

And there's a whole list of sources to back it up...so snopes didnt just 'choose the liberal view.'

The "liberal" view is that anaesthetised patients can't make conscious movements. Are you suggesting that the foetus was operated on while it was aware? Blind political parochialism is driving your madness.
 
This ignore function works great. I'm glad I don't have to see a woman desperately trying to justify murdering children. That is disgusting in the extreme.

Hey, if you have failed so badly in making your arguments...just be aware that everyone else can see me picking them apart and that you are unable to defend them.

But please dont post about other posters...stick to discussion. Your smugness is now lost since each time you post, I am still free to show you're wrong if I'd like to.
 
The "liberal" view is that anaesthetised patients can't make conscious movements. Are you suggesting that the foetus was operated on while it was aware? Blind political parochialism is driving your madness.

I'm not...the OP is. I made pretty much the same claim as you did...as did the information AND the Dr. that also refuted him.
 
And now we'll hear from a nice lady, who does not murder babies:

Unborn Baby’s Hand Continues to Change Hearts and Lives
By Liz Townsend
https://www.nationalrighttolifenews...ight-to-life-convention-2011-banquet-speaker/

One moment can change your life. That’s what Michael Clancy has discovered in the eight and a half years since he snapped the groundbreaking photo of an unborn baby clutching his doctor’s hand during fetal surgery.

Clancy is now a fervent pro-lifer, spreading the message that unborn babies are precious human beings and deserve protection. He will be a featured speaker at the upcoming NRL Convention in Washington, D.C., July 3–5.

“It was the earliest human interaction ever recorded,” Clancy told NRL News. “It proved that the child at 21 weeks in utero is a reactive human being.”

When he took the photo in August 1999, Clancy was a freelance photographer filming the fetal surgery procedure for USA Today. Unborn baby Samuel Armas had been diagnosed with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which occur when the spinal column fails to fuse properly, leaving a lesion (or opening) that is highly susceptible to infection. Dr. Joseph Bruner and his team at Vanderbilt University were operating to close the lesion.

After the incision was made in mother Julie Armas’s abdomen, her uterus was removed and laid on her thighs. An opening was made in the uterus, and the surgeons were supposed to operate on Samuel without any part of his body emerging from inside.

However, as Clancy eloquently describes on his web site, Blessed! - Hand of Hope The Story Behind The PictureHand of Hope The Story Behind The Picture, “out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one’s hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing.

“The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor’s finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow! It happened so fast that the nurse standing next to me asked, ‘What happened?’ ‘The child reached out,’ I said. ‘Oh. They do that all the time,’ she responded.”

The amazing photograph of Samuel reaching out to his doctor appeared in USA Today and The Tennessean September 7, 1999. Although Clancy never sought notoriety, his work immediately caught the attention of the media and of people around the world.

Clancy was shocked, however, when fetal surgeon Joseph Bruner told USA Today in May 2000 that the photo did not show purposeful movement by Samuel. Bruner claimed that he saw the hand near the incision and he “reached over and picked it up. … The baby did not reach out. The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on.”

But Clancy posted on his web site the series of frames that depict the moment of contact between Samuel and Dr. Bruner, and they show that Samuel is moving his own hand, grasping the doctor.

“The doctor questioned my credibility,” Clancy told NRL News. “But Samuel punched out, and even damaged the surgical opening. That 21-week-old child reacted to the touch of his surgeon.”

Clancy went on to testify at a congressional hearing in 2003 along with then-three-year-old Samuel, who was born 15 weeks after his surgery. During the hearing, as reported in National Review, Sen. Sam Brownback pointed to a large copy of Clancy’s photo and asked Samuel who it was. “Baby Samuel,” he answered. Brownback then asked what was happening. “They fixed my boo-boo,” said Samuel.

Although he considers himself “shy,” Clancy agreed to speak at the annual banquet of a local crisis pregnancy center about two and a half years ago. After he spoke, “they gave me the first standing ovation I ever had,” Clancy recalled. “Afterwards, 20 to 30 people were lined up to speak with me, and told me I need to continue telling my story.”

Clancy listened to their advice, and is now telling people about his first-hand witness to the humanity of the unborn. He also encourages people to download the photo from his web site and distribute it far and wide.

“It changes one heart at a time, that’s what this picture does,” he said. “This is God’s work. This is the youngest interaction with a child inside the womb ever recorded. As long as it keeps being put where people can see it, it can save lives.”
 
And now we'll hear from a nice lady, who does not murder babies:

There are alot of stupid and ignorant 'nice' people. :lamo

Plenty of smart and educated and compassionate ones too.

OTOH, speaking of 'educated,' we're in the Abortion sub-forum which is a) not about murder and b) not about 'babies!'

Perhaps you can find a more appropriate place to post your 'feel-good' but misguided rants. Your OP article has nothing to do with abortion :doh

:lamo
 
I'm not...the OP is. I made pretty much the same claim as you did...as did the information AND the Dr. that also refuted him.

My apologies. I replied to the wrong post!
 
Last edited:
So do looks determine whether someone is human or not? Maybe we can murder people like the elephant man, right? He looks pretty bad.

Or size? Does size determine where someone is human or not? People come in all shapes and sizes.

Your criteria falls short. Looks, shape, size.... ...none of that cosmetic crap matters. A human being with human DNA is a human being. Period.

"A human being" is a "human being." How enlightening. {{sarchasm alert}}} There clearly must be more to being "a human being" than merely possessing human DNA since human DNA can be found in ANY PART of a human. Many of us think a working brain is an essential component of being classified as "a human being." If you disagree, feel free to make your own life decisions based on your thoughts, but leave the rest of us to make our own decisions.
 
So many women here, desperate to keep murdering children legal. How disgustingly sad
 
Good. It looks like you need a little enlightenment.
But it seems you are unable to.

And you keep posting about other posters instead of attempting to refute our facts. That is what people do in discussions...they discuss the topic.
 
I'll go with the word of the man who took the picture, not the ....



The picture is of the Doctor gently lifting the arm and hand after it slipped out during surgery.

As said neither the fetus nor the mother could move since they had been anthezided for the surgery.

Still is a remarkable photo and shows how advanced prenatal surgery has become.

Congrats to the medical field and to the doctor for performing the surgery.
 
Last edited:
I'll go with the word of the man who took the picture, ...



The picture is of the Doctor gently lifting the arm and hand after it slipped out during surgery.

As said neither the fetus nor the mother could move since they had been anthezided for the surgery.

Still is a remarkable photo and shows how advanced prenatal surgery has become.

Congrats to the medical field and to the doctor for performing the surgery.

From a hospital that performs this type of surgery
Prenatal repair of myelomeningocele is performed between 19 and 25 weeks’ gestation. Mothers must be willing to stay in Philadelphia with a support person for the surgery and for the duration of the pregnancy to allow close monitoring.

In prenatal repair, the mother receives general anesthesia, which also relaxes the uterus and anesthetizes the fetus. Fetal surgeons perform a laparotomy (an incision across the mother’s abdomen), the uterus is opened with a uterine stapling device that pinches off all blood vessels and keeps membranes secured to the muscle.


Read more:

https://www.chop.edu/treatments/fetal-surgery-spina-bifida/about
 
So do looks determine whether someone is human or not? Maybe we can murder people like the elephant man, right? He looks pretty bad.

Or size? Does size determine where someone is human or not? People come in all shapes and sizes.

Your criteria falls short. Looks, shape, size.... ...none of that cosmetic crap matters. A human being with human DNA is a human being. Period.
There is quite a difference between the elephant man or a little person and a pea-sized gloop of cells. A hair follicle is comprised of human DNA. Every cell in our body contains human DNA and is living. At best, a fetus is special because it has the capacity (if cared for by its mother for months) to develop into a human being (although science may make that less special relatively soon). But does that give it immediately human rights? I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.

There are far more deserving creatures alive and deserving of rights than non-sentient fetuses, IMO. And I'm not even an animal rights activist.
 
Last edited:
Samuel Armas is the child shown in a famous photograph by Michael Clancy, dubbed the "Hand of Hope," of his hand extending from an opening in his mother's uterus and touching his surgeon's finger during open fetal surgery for spina bifida.

The photograph was taken during a medical procedure to fix the spina bifida lesion of a 21-week-old fetus in the womb. The operation was performed by a surgical team at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. The team, Dr. Joseph Bruner and Dr. Noel Tulipan, had been developing a technique for correcting certain fetal problems in mid-pregnancy. Their procedure involved temporarily opening the uterus, draining the amniotic fluid, partially extracting and performing surgery on the tiny fetus, and then restoring the fetus to the uterus back inside the mother.

lifephto.jpg



Pictures from the surgery were printed in a number of newspapers in the U.S. and around the world, including USA Today. As a result of the operation, Armas was healthy when he was delivered on December 2, 1999.

On September 25, 2003, the boy's parents, Alex and Julie, testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space about the photograph and their experience with in-utero surgery: "Today, Samuel is nearly four years old and has not had to endure the surgeries that are common for most children with spina bifida. He's walking with leg braces, is cognitively normal, and loves looking for bugs." — Alex Armas

source link


Only sick degenerate vile animal could murder a child by abortion after seeing this.
 
Only sick degenerate vile animal could murder a child by abortion after seeing this.

What's sick is the level of willful ignorance portrayed by anyone weak-minded enough to gulp down this swill as reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom