Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When “abortion” isn't (Must Read!!)
Jewish World Review ^ | April 23, 2007 | Rabbi Avi Shafran

Posted on 04/27/2007 7:57:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: EDINVA

your post reminds me of a situation with one of my college roommates.

We thought she had been gaining weight - she was a large girl and did not develop a distinct pregnancy “bump.”

No one suspected pregnancy for awhile because she never halted her partying -she was a heavy drinker.
She continued to date. And she never said she was.

One of our friends noticed her stomach “moving” one night at a party, but we still could not believe she would drink like a fish while pregnant.

Well...we finally put the question to her, and she said yes, she was pregnant but didn’t want anyone to know.

As it turned out - she was eight months at that point.

She said a few weeks earlier she had tried to arrange an abortion but was told it was illegal at that late stage.

Soon after she gave birth and gave the child up for adoption.

So - what type of woman has this procedure done?

I’m guessing someone who has been in denial the entire pregnancy. Maybe part of it is mental illness - maybe fear.
With the impending birth coming up they panic and try to end it.


21 posted on 04/28/2007 9:23:14 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

It’s a pretty narrow opinion. Some clever butcher will find a way to finese it. The mad dog has just backed off a foot or two.


22 posted on 04/28/2007 9:39:20 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
This information was posted on the NC Board yesterday. The poster might have more details on the source:

At one time, some states limited late-term and partial birth abortions to instances in which the health of the mother was threatened. R2L did a survey of women who had had the procedure under that exception and found the two most common reasons were “mental distress caused by childbirth pain” and “fear of vaginal stretching or tearing.” R2L also did surveys where the procedure was not restricted and found that fewer than one percent of the abortions were done for reasons other than convenience.

23 posted on 04/28/2007 9:53:43 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("And he had turned the Prime Minister's teacup into a gerbil.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
he two most common reasons were “mental distress caused by childbirth pain” and “fear of vaginal stretching or tearing.”

Errr.... What? Have these women never heard of a planed C-section?

Not that it is the best thing but you do avoid the two areas they list as their cause for concern and you end up with a live rather then dead baby.

24 posted on 04/28/2007 9:59:24 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Mobile phones kill more people than exploding cupboards, ironing boards and Godzilla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

what a sad story .... I’m guessing the baby was born with fetal alcohol system. People like that don’t seem to think of the damage they are doing. Just breaks your heart :(


25 posted on 04/28/2007 10:02:33 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

BUMP!!!


26 posted on 04/28/2007 10:13:19 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod (Benedict XVI = Terminator IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Have these women never heard of a planned C-section?

Apparently not.

I'm a big fan of anesthesia, myself, although I've never found a hospital where they'd agree to put me to sleep for the whole thing, like they did when my mother was having babies!

27 posted on 04/28/2007 10:51:15 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("And he had turned the Prime Minister's teacup into a gerbil.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

the truth is there is no physical or mental condition that necessitates this brutal procedure.

If there truly is an emergency where pregnancy has to be ended, the c-section or induced labor is actually much less stressful on the mother.

The only purpose for dilation & extraction is to have a dead baby, even though the baby is past the “viable” date.


28 posted on 04/28/2007 12:39:02 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

I’m sure the baby suffered from the alcohol, but at least there was a loving couple right there waiting to take him home.


29 posted on 04/28/2007 12:40:28 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

Wonderful !!! With loving, intelligent parents the baby would get the care he’d need and be able to overcome those problems. Thanks for sharing the happy outcome.


30 posted on 04/28/2007 2:21:15 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I thought perhaps there might be cases where incisions were contraindicated.


31 posted on 04/28/2007 3:36:44 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

That seems impossible, but I’m sure a dedicated PBA supporter could find SOME reason that SOME baby’s brain has to be sucked out.


32 posted on 04/28/2007 4:40:57 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("And he had turned the Prime Minister's teacup into a gerbil.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

33 posted on 04/28/2007 6:11:20 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; ..

.


34 posted on 04/28/2007 6:42:22 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, insects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Being a mother, and having felt my babies move within...I stand with you! I cannot comprehend it.


35 posted on 04/28/2007 8:42:07 PM PDT by MountainFlower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

>> If there truly is an emergency where pregnancy has to be ended, the c-section ...

and the ethical attempt to save the baby as well.


36 posted on 04/28/2007 8:42:18 PM PDT by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

The ghoul that ‘invented’ PBA did so for the benefit of abortionist not for women’s health. The method preferred prior to PBA invention was to dismember the alive child while in the womb either by a ‘mix-master’ suction system -if the child is between one or two months from conception up to aboutthree months- or by reaching in and pulling on the child as the arms, legs, and head come off of the trunk and are place upon a tray for finally assessment, to make sure all the pieces are removed. This dismemberment occurs up to about sixteen weeks to eighteen weeks from conception, thereafter the child doesn’t come apart as easily and can be killed by poisonous injection or saline scalding then removed. PBA made it possible to have the woman ‘wait a bit before having the nuisance removed, since the fetal tissues are valued in the tissue business for research, etc. By using PBA, taking two to three days to start and finish, an alive child can be disposed of in the ten to fifteen week gestational age period without dismembering in the womb with the incumbent dangers of missing a part left behind to cause infection and LAWSUITS.


37 posted on 04/28/2007 9:07:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TBP
“I believe he’s Reverend Baldwin.”

What’s the problem? “Reverends”s are also “Mr.”s in Bible-believing churches. MR. Baldwin is a Baptist pastor. Being a Baptist — a Bible-believing one — he doesn’t believe in a clergy over laity set-up. Therefore he would not mind being known as Mr. Baldwin.

I am also an ordained Baptist minister of 30 years, and “Mr.” is just fine with me. I hate the title “Reverend,” and never use it. When we are at Camp Meetings, conference and the like, we call each other “Brother.” The members of my congregation usually call me “Brother.” Sometimes some of them call me “Pastor” (which I am), but if anyone calls me “Reverend” I will ask them not to use it. I never sign “Rev.” before my name, either.

In eras gone by, it was very common for people to address ordained ministers by “Mr.” in public, and there is nothing wrong with it. Worse is the modern habit of young people calling their ministers by their given name.

The only "reverends" in the Bible, by the way, are husbands. Wives are told in Ephesians 5:33 (KJB) to REVERENCE their husbands (not their pastors). Yes, MR. Baldwin was the running mate of Mr. Peroutka. Good folks!

38 posted on 04/29/2007 12:42:43 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

“and the ethical attempt to save the baby as well.”

yes...absolutely. The baby is viable. Absolutely no medical benefit to sucking the brain out of the poor thing.


39 posted on 04/29/2007 9:08:41 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson