Posted on 03/07/2014 12:52:26 PM PST by don-o
What if they make a mistake and murder a baby that was supposed to be delivered?
“Oh, sorry. Next.”
Hi, I’m Stephanie. What’s your name? Are you giving birth here, or killing your baby? Me, I’m in for killing. Oh! You’re going to keep your baby. Wow, good luck with All That. Oh I should have known if I’d looked at your balloons, they say It’s A Boy. Cool. Yeah, my boyfriend got me these balloons, aren’t they cute? “Abortion Means No Diapers” and “yay I’m not tied to that bitch for 18 years,” isn’t that so funny??
“So do you want the ‘Bundle of Joy’ package, or the ‘Termination of an Aggressive Growth’ package?”
beat me to it.
I drove by their fetal murder center the other day.
They could not have picked a seedier part of town.
What is access like as far as street counseling?
ADMITTING NURSE: Abortions to your right. Deliveries to your left.
CLERK. No, no. They switched last week.
ADMITTING NURSE: Oopsie.
______________________________________________
DOCTOR: All right miss. This won’t take a minute. There all done.
PATIENT: Can I see my baby? Is it a boy or a girl?
DOCTOR: Oopsie.
“They could not have picked a seedier part of town.”
The local woman’s “health” center is near campus and within walking distance of most of the prostitutes work stations...er...lamp posts.
Is it right next to Alcohol Rehab Clinic/Discount Liquor Store?
How about near the new Muslim Mosque/Jewish Temple?
Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
Published Sunday, February 6, 2011 A.D. | By Donald R. McClarey
As president, Ronald Reagan was an unflagging champion of unborn human life. “Today there is a wound in our national conscience,” Reagan told a joint session of Congress in his 1986 State of the Union. “America will never be whole as long as the right to life granted by our Creator is denied to the unborn.”
Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.
As an act of “raw judicial power” (to use Justice White’s biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become aWe cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life. We saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of “Baby Doe” in Bloomington because the child had Down’s Syndrome. continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that “the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children.”
Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade.
At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to—any more than the public voice arose against slavery—until the issue is clearly framed and presented.
What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being—one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down’s Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a “non-existent” possibility for “a minimally adequate quality of life”—in other words, that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.
A Nobel Prize winning scientist has suggested that if a handicapped child “were not declared fully human until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice.” In other words, “quality control” to see if newly born human beings are up to snuff.
Obviously, some influential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status as a “human being.”
Events have borne out the editorial in a California medical journal which explained three years before Roe v. Wade that the social acceptance of abortion is a “defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status.”
We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind—black people in America—could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his assessment of the Declaration’s purpose. Speaking of the framers of that noble document, he said: He warned also of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings:
The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.
The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is “to protect innocent life, both before and after birth.” This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.
As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named Victoria, who said, “In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby.” She has been helped by Sav-a-Life, a group in Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to nine handicapped adopted and foster children.
Reagan concluded his essay by writing something that I firmly believe: America cannot survive as a free land with abortion:
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.
As a benefit, they give you a day to decide if it’s a “ keeper”....
There won’t be many births there. This is just your standard dog turd with sprinkles on top.
We’ve had them for years if you can believe the posters on the El in Philadelphia and on the street. I think the posters are misleading. I think they are intended to get women in the door so they can be propagandized. That happened to a friend of mine who went into a Planned Parenthood clinic to get birth control advice. She was pregnant at the time and she said that she didn’t want any more after this one. They came out with papers to sign for an abortion. She kept telling them she wanted this one, but they kept pressuring her to abort it. She finally walked out disgusted.
This is incredibly repugnant. The cognitive dissonance should be enough to make anybody’s head explode.
I wonder if polling tells them that a lot of expectant mothers want their babies delivered by abortionists who have a few minutes off before their next scheduled kill.
This is a obvious ruse to give this chamber of horrors some credibility....
“See we just don’t kill babies”
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.