Posted on 10/17/2011 9:34:36 AM PDT by julieee
He should have destroyed the premise instead of answering the fool in his folly.
He should ask something like this:
Why bring up fringe cases of abortions when the vast majority of them are NOT rape and incest, but for convenience?
Why not address the majority of the incidents and deal with them, then deal with your fringe cases as they come up?
We’ve haqd a sales tax in my state for many years. Prices are only a little more expensive here than a state with no sales tax. However a state with an income tax takes a very large and juicy bite out of one’s income!
And don’t forget that the Federal Income tax law will become extinct! Music to our ears? Yes!
Read more: 9 responses to 9 false attacks on 9-9-9 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=356825#ixzz1b1UDSiTl
So you worked in a high-risk OB center and never heard of first or early second trimester preeclampsia? What about an ectopic pregnancy where the mother is hemorrhaging? Killing that baby is an abortion by the strictest of terms.
My mother had a maternal infection and was toxic. She was four months pregnant and nearly died.
Would you terminate a molar pregnancy?
Pregnancy is much less risky than it used to be, but there are still risks.
What I *don’t* see is a situation where the baby must be killed after the 20th week. The baby has to come out dead or alive. Might as well be alive and try to save it.
But there are still tragic situations and I see no reason we should root for two dead people instead of dealing with one.
Exactly . . . altho the rape or incestual pregnancy is indeed a tragedy in and of itself, the premeditated murder (and that's what it is) of the innocent baby (or babies) is totally uncalled for.
My daughter and son-in-law had to go to Russia to adopt a baby because we have no babies in orphanages here in America . . . none. I was given up for adoption in 1944 here in America, to an American orphanage . . . Cleveland had a half-dozen of them back then . . . not no more!
Good to see Herman standing by his position on this even if I disagree. I DO support some exceptions.
“The “wiggle” is between your ears, and its about as wide as a basketball court. “
ROFLOL
That, my friend, is the quote of the day. The newb is reading Taro cards.
Of course I’ve heard of early preeclampsia. I advocate transferring the care of those women to OBs who can closely manage & monitor their care, not encourage the early termination of their pregnancy. Preeclampsia can be managed. More often than not, these things are used as excuses to push an abortion.
An ectopic pregnancy is not viable. It is not an abortion. Get your facts straight.
Being septic at 4 months gestation would usually result in the death of the fetus. Performing a D & C to terminate the pregnancy would further exacerbate the sepsis, so the treatment would be medical, not surgical. In case of the onset of DIC, again the baby would most likely not survive & every effort would be made to save the mother AND child.
A molar pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy. THere is no embryo. Again, get the facts.
I do not see ANY reason to kill an unborn child, whether its 20 weeks or less. Your position is not pro-life. And don’t give me this B.S. that anyone is rooting for two deaths. That’s simply untrue & demented.
Excellent response:
“Because murdering a little baby is still murdering a little baby. What does the very real and very alive innocent little baby have to do with the circumstance of it’s conception? And how does the murder of a baby abate the anguish of the mother in the case of rape of incest? Au contraire, the love of the innocent child can HEAL the suffering of the mother. God doesn’t make mistakes. God’s answer to all suffering is love and truth.
A child is not a choice, a child is a human being. Choose love, not murder.”
Oh yeah, btw, I’ve seen women carry pregnancy to term or nearly full term who have had major complications. And some with incredible pre-existing conditions, like congenital cardiac defects, heart transplanations, etc. Our center delivered the first ever baby to a woman who had had a multiviseral transplant (stomach, intestine, liver, pancreas, & kidney).
So don’t talk to me like I haven’t seen tragic situations.
What Herman SHOULD have said was:
“I’m against abortion, but David, in your case, I would have encouraged your mama to have one.”
Just sayin’...
Here is a pretty good video I saw adressing abortion, scarry how many people in school are not familiar with history:
Here is a video on youtube that address abortion.
Scary how many kids in school do not knwo history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
Everyone who is pro-life believes that the life of the mother is no less precious than that of her baby, and would support medical treatment that is necessary to save the mother’s life even if it unfortunately resulted in the death of the baby (although the decision is ultimately the mother’s, and there are many cases of mothers who have risked their life in order to give the gift of life to their babies). It is merely a question of semantics whether someone says that he or she believes that induced (or intentional) abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother versus saying that he or she believes that induced abortion should never be legal, but that a medical treatment to save the life of the mother that has the unintended consequence of killing the baby is not really an induced abortion.
Someone like Herman Cain, who opposes abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother, is 100% pro-life, period, end of sentence. Not even George W. Bush, who has been our most pro-life president (at least since Roe v. Wade), held that position.
It isn’t going to become law at all.
The point is that Cain can be hammered hard by it in the general election. Its a loser.
“If a child should be murdered in the womb because their father committed a crime, then we should be putting to death all the children of those who have been convicted of crimes.
After all, when you abort a child that was created from the act of a rape or incest, you are in essence punishing the child for the crime of their father.”
>> “This is a Democrat talking point.” <<
.
No, it is a conservative, pro business talking point.
You completely miss my point. To a small business every transaction will be treated as retail. You are spoution on something that you apparently don’t understand.
Cain’s 999 will have the same effect on small business that europe’s VAT had on theirs; that is the issue, not how europe’s VAT is applied in general.
Cain’s plan will of course never even be introduced in congress, let alone ever pass, but as an election issue, it will kill him. Losing for nothing!
>> “Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 LOWERS the cost of goods” <<
.
That is a pie in the sky pipe dream. You have nothing to support that assertion. It is as insane as the grossly unfair “fair tax.”
>> “I’ve know many women who’ve lost their babies this way and they grieve.” <<
.
I know that this argument has been used to promote abortion, but in every case, the child loses its life for nothing. abortions do not save women’s lives ever. They usually endanger the mother as much as the murdered child.
.
>> “My religion teaches that a woman *must* abort if the pregnancy threatens her life.” <<
Sounds like Satan’s ‘religion.’
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.