Posted on 04/19/2007 11:06:38 AM PDT by redstates4ever
"I'm incredibly bitter today. And disgusted. What the Supreme Court did today is nothing short of repugnant. I can't say that I'm exactly surprised that a group of conservative men chose to expand federal powers and sanction torture for women today by declaring the ban on late term abortions that President Bush signed in 1993 does not violate the Constitution.
No, not surprised that people who will never have any idea of what it means to be forced to choose between your own life or that of the fetus you're carrying would make such an emotional and irrational decision. None of these men will ever be forced to carry a fetus against their will. This decision will never impact them at all - all their wives, daughters, and mistresses are well off enough that they can fly to a more humane country if something unforeseen and awful happens during their pregnancies. It's the normal, every day women who will suffer. And what do they care? They got to make their point.
Does my life mean so little? Do the Supreme Court justices really think they have such vast medical expertise and personal knowledge of my health and personal life that they - not my doctor and not me - should be making my medical decisions? I realize that at the time the Constitution was written, women didn't really have any rights - but do they really think putting my health on the level of livestock is really the way to go?
Less than 2% of abortions occur after 21 weeks. Women do not run around getting knocked up willy nilly for the sheer pleasure of having invasive and painful surgeries, and they especially do not look forward to have to make a choice between getting chemo for cancer or sacrificing their lives for a healthy baby. Most men that I know do not want to face fatherhood alone - they do not want children enough to let their wives die for it. They do not look forward to the idea of letting the kid visit mommy in the graveyard.
It kills me - kills me - that pro-forced childbirth advocates are so happy about this! Do they think they've just saved countless lives? Do they honestly and truly think that this decision will stop late term abortions from happening? I know, I know, they don't give a rat's ass about the reality of the situation - just their f**ked up, rose-colored glasses worldview. "
(my edit on the swear word in the last sentence)
Excellent. I hope there are thousands more like her cherishing their hatred until it rids us of them.
Rosie is such a nut. According to her we should amend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, and fire can’t melt steel. I guess this is her latest. I find this interesting regarding partial birth abortion. It is often done on healthy mothers and children:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amedne...7/pick_97/spec0303.htm (subscription required)
American Medical News —— amednews.com —— THE NEWSPAPER FOR AMERICA’S PHYSICANS -———
By Diane M. Gianelli, AMNews staff. March 3, 1997.
Abortion rights leader urges end to “half truths”
WASHINGTON — Breaking ranks with his colleagues in the abortion rights movement, the leader of one prominent abortion provider group is calling for a more truthful debate in the ongoing battle over whether to ban a controversial late-term abortion procedure. In fact, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he would rather not spend his political capital defending the procedure at all. There is precious little popular support for it, he says, and a federal ban would have almost no real-world impact on the physicians who perform late-term abortions or patients who seek them.
“The pro-choice movement has lost a lot of credibility during this debate, not just with the general public, but with our pro-choice friends in Congress,” Fitzsimmons said. “Even the White House is now questioning the accuracy of some of the information given to it on this issue.” He cited prominent abortion rights supporters such as the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, who took the movement to task for providing inaccurate information on the procedure. Those pressing to ban the method call it “partial birth” abortion, while those who perform it refer to it as “intact” dilation and extraction (D&X) or dilation and evacuation (D&E).
What abortion rights supporters failed to acknowledge, Fitzsimmons said, is that the vast majority of these abortions are performed in the 20-plus week range on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers. “The abortion rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else,” he said. He knows it, he says, because when the bill to ban it came down the pike, he called around until he found doctors who did them. “I learned right away that this was being done for the most part in cases that did not involve those extreme circumstances,” he said.
Repugnant bitch??? Too bad your mother didn’t have a doctor suck out your brains just before you were born! At least we wouldn’t have to listen to your spew!
“Murder is always better than birth control”
Today seems like a good day to ressurect my tagline.
This is not 1964, there are many various and effective forms of birth control.
Why are there still so many Unwanted Preganancies?
She could have bought it herself you know. Either that or her girlfriend gave it to her.
Exactly!! The procedure itself requires several days to perform, since the cervix must be dilated first. This means that the procedure is never used in an emergency to save the life of the mother.
The abortion practitioner instrumentally reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus’ feet, and pulls the feet down into the cervix. The reason this is done is not as a medical necessity, but to avoid actually birthing the baby. If the baby were fully born, killing it would be considered murder.
20% are for genetic reasons, and the other 80% are purely elective.
I’m getting sick just typing this BS!
Don't worry, lady.
No one's linin' up to get you preggers.
BINGO.
In lieu of “saving the life of the mother” by late term abortion, a humane society would try to save two lives by premature delivery of the child.
Wanted children born at 22 weeks have a very low rate of survival but “unwanted” children aborted at 22 weeks die.
Presumaby the death of the child “saves the life of the mother” by releasing her from her unwanted responsibility for the fate of another living being. Such as having to choose adoptive parents or buy large jars of mayonnaise at Costco. The horror. (sarc)
Please don’t confuse libs with facts and reality unless alone....no need for innocent bystanders to be hurt when their heads explode....
Funny, I thought this was the one argument with which I thought she would agree...and if she didn’t I figured she’d come up with some medical reason as to why it would be necessary “for the life of the mother”. She offered me nothing.
NO MORE WIRE HANGERS - EVER!
I'd swallow back my vomit before attempting that thing.
Is that what I am?
“Repugnant bitch??? Too bad your mother didn’t have a doctor suck out your brains just before you were born! At least we wouldn’t have to listen to your spew!”
Are you sure that didn’t happen?
“Well, Rosie doesn’t think that fire can melt steel. Apparently she has never been to Pittsburgh or watched “Terminator 2”...”
LOL!!
Don’t sell our girl short.
She does know steel can melt - she wants us ALL to know that the fires on 9/11 did not reach the melting point temperature.
She chooses to ignore that steel begins to lose strength at 400 degrees, and strength is cut 50% at 1,000 degrees.
She doesn’t seem to understand it can weaken twist, buckle,and snap.
She won’t let facts get in the way of telling us all we’re wrong.
I believe that’s because if the baby is born head first, he may already be breathing on his own and so considered a baby instead of a 7 month “fetus”. And, amazingly, sucking the brains out of a living baby is still considered a no-no.
That is perfect!
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.