Posted on 04/19/2007 11:06:38 AM PDT by redstates4ever
No doubt.
“I am bitter, hear my screed.”
Which makes this day exactly like every other day in her life.
All I can say to her is “Lady, lets think about the kind of women that want abortions.”
Reminds me of that pic of Cho holding the run to his own head, except she uses an oldschool abortion tool!
lol!!! Good one!!!!!!
That’s what I’ve asked my lib, OB nurse sister...if the mother’s life is in jeopardy and the pregnancy needs to be ternimated, why not just deliver the baby...either by section or vaginally (whichever is safer for mom and/or baby)? Why murder the infant?
Of course, depending on the age of the baby, it may or not fare well, but babies are surviving at younger gestational ages than ever before.
Our own loser Governor, Granholm, vetoed legislation in our state because it “didn’t provide a provision for the life of the mother”. But doesn’t delivery of a live baby provide this just as well as a murdered one?
Lib-sister just looked at me and shrugged.
Only a truly evil person could be so self centered as to make this statement in the same article that she rants about supporting procedures that murder unborn children and extracts them from the mother's womb as if they are nothing more than cancerous tissue. Truly evil.
Our current President has a daddy by the same name who was in office in 1993...
(I’m not sure what she’s specifically referring to, my only point is there was a Bush in office in 93)
"How sex selection in favor of boys is implicated in the partial birth abortions of baby girls."
How's that for a feminist contradiction?
I’m going to use that!
“I’m sure you can find a medical need to abort a fetus/baby in the 6th/7th month.”
Probably the examples most likely to be brought up would be discovery of cancer - or heart trouble - or blood pressure trouble - some type of infection maybe.
The definition of PBA is pretty specific.
Regardless - premature fetuses are surviving earlier and earlier.
When you are talking 6th 7th month - you are talking viable.
So the question remains...how is the crushing of the skull “saving” the life of the mother as opposed to delivering the head intact and then treating the baby like the human being it is?
Sure...chances are slim for the premature infant - but odds are much better than if the brains were sucked out.
Ah, I’d hate to point out the flaw in your rant for fear that if I anger you, you may startle and stampede, but....
If your life is in jeopardy, why not induce labor, have the BABY and just NOT KILL HIM OR HER when they come out? Or is that just simpleton thinking on my part?
RK, you nailed it exactly!
you lib sister doesn’t have an answer because there is no answer.
Meanwhile Rosie told everyone today on The View that this procedure is ONLY done in emergency to safe the life of the mother.
hooh boy.
Wasn’t Clinton in office in 1993? Or is this shrieking harpie claiming that Bush 41 signed something in 1993 before he left office?
Only for 19 days.
That pic of Mommy Dearest was great.
Who is this lady? Where can I send a demoralizing letter?
Thanks.
For Heaven’s sake, go throw yourself off a bridge, lady.
Uhhh, Bill Clinton was in office in 1993.
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.