Posted on 11/22/2001 10:59:38 PM PST by toenail
FDA unleashes new threat to human babies
"In the midst of a terror campaign and a frightening battle against anthrax, the FDA has somehow been able to find the time to sanction yet another form of baby killing," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "The newly-approved birth control patch uses the same abortion-causing chemicals used in many other so-called contraceptives."
With its approval of the birth control patch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has now approved its fourth new "contraceptive" option in the last year. The skin patch has been added to a collection that already includes a monthly injection, a hormone-emitting IUD, and a hormone-emitting contraceptive ring.
"All these devices deliver the same hormones to the woman's body and all work in the same manner," said Mrs. Brown. "They all affect the uterine lining and prevent implantation of a newly-conceived human being, thus causing the end of that human being's life."
"The FDA should be ashamed of itself," said Mrs. Brown. "All Americans should reject this new form of baby killing and seek to protect all innocent human life, from fertilization to natural death."
Release issued: 21 Nov 01
©2001 American Life League, Inc.
Contessa, how in the name of heavens is it THEN moral to kill the baby? How could you DARE put that young girl who's been through so much pain already through more pain by having her kill that child?
I'm a man. My wife had an IUD (dalcon shield) in her uterus, as a contraceptive measure ... you don't know the half of how liitle people actually understand regarding human fertility, impregnation, and pregnancy.
My wife became pregnant with the IUD still in place. The danger was that she could have a perforated uterus/womb at some future point during the pregnancy and bleed to death, also that the IUD would eventually do its job causing a 'miscarriage'. We opted to have the IUD removed via D&C ... I now think of those letters signifying dice and clear, not dilation and cutterage. [It's such sterile wording, D&C, don't you think?]
The above means that I've been involved in abortion. Fact. I admit the wrong. Fact. I am pro-life. Fact. I used to think myself 'pro-life', yet believed it was best to opt for legislation that allowed abortion prior to brainwave activity, whenever that could be established regardless of the gestational age.
When I call my self pro-life now, I am referring to the belief that this society (and the world, really, but we can't convert the globe yet) should be working toward sustaining and supporting the lifetime begun at conception, of every individual human being conceived in this nation, with the only except being the imminent endangerment to the life of the woman should the pregnancy continue (like with a tubal pregnancy) ... ancillary to this support is the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, but to use serial killing as the means to deal with such is grossly wrong.
How did this evolution occur? The loving persuasion of others already clear as to the God-given right to life implicit in conception. You see, reproductive rights are the rightful choice of the woman, and the man, where agreement occurs, and they have their God to answer to regarding such for only their life is at issue ... but that's way short of using serial killing once conception has occurred, and that's the gigantic difference that we the people must come to understand.
Once conception has occurred, it is no longer a matter of reproductive rights since another individual lifetime of a human being has begun; the issues switch to matters of life support, or the rejection of same, where a few months of pregnancy are weighed against a lifetime already begun but being concidered for arbitrary termination for reasons of convenience, crass abandonment of responsibility, or, as one deluded soul has tried to offer 'so a woman can reach her full potential via killing the easiest one to eliminate'.
I have no doubt that many congress critters have abortion in their family, in their history, but, as you can readily understand from my insignificant experience, one doesn't have to support wrong once one finds out the wrong.
Make it a religious issue, if you choose, but it is really also about abiding by the founding principles of this greatest nation in the history of humankind, for we espouse that all alive are endowed with life by our Creator, not by agreement of the majority or enlightened edict of some high court. The Roe v Wade fiat ruling would be the most horrible exception to that fatc since it has led to more than 40,000,000 already begun individual lifetimes being serial killed off as a woman's right to choose a serial killer, completely ignoring the scientific truth that once conception occurs (union of sperm and human ovum), a new individual lifetime has begun and has the same right to the Creator's endowment which will enter the air (they're already in the world, riding around in their miraculous life-support vehicle called Mom) in a few months if not arbitrarily ended or accidentally terminated or through tragic circumstance lost to US.
[/screed]
;-)
Think of the JOY it would give her to be able to give a couple who cannot have children, the gift of life!!! Why can't that at least be a consideration in this argument? Why is this rape & incest thing always thrown up when it's such a SMALL portion of the abortions being had?
All laws are there to reign in (controlling by punishing) the actions of people. Do you oppose the idea of creating and enforcing laws since, as you say, you "want people to be free to choose" ? Is there something somehow wrong about wanting to "control the behavior of others" ?
This is the part where we have to 'fess up that some people's morality is better than others. Mine and hopefully the morality of most people on this forum is better than that of cannibals, rapists and those who torture six-month-old babies.
Is there any denying this? Or are we shackled only to the law of non-judgement of human behavior, leaving us with no other law but our own personal decisions? Does anybody really want to follow this train of thought to its logical derailment?
I don't think so. And I don't think you think so, either. So, then, it comes time to decide whose morality we want to translate into the law of the land. Should it be that of the baby torturers, cannibals or/and rapists? No, because deep down we all know that theirs just isn't 'good' enough. And I don't mean that in terms of systematic efficiency, I mean that in terms of ethics.
The Christian God gives man the freedom of choice. Why can't you follow in his footsteps?
If God wants us to have (or gave us) 100% freedom in choices of morality, then why'd He create and approve of the idea of government of humans by humans? If we're all free to make whatever choices we want until Judgement Day, then why are there even governments in the first place?
First of all, no one opposed to the current legality of abortion would be "forcing" this person into having an abortion, period. In cases where the continued sustenance of the mother's life does not hinge on killing her child, the only thing that would "force" this person into a situation of possibly stabbing and killing herself with a coathanger in an attempt to kill her own child is her own insistence in doing so (i.e., by her own choice).
So then, secondly, the more compassionate thing to do overall would be to insist that no abortions take place, regardless of whether they're in an alley way, on a highway or in the Milky Way, so as not to harm the child or the mother.
Brilliant! We are using that same method to keep people from using drugs. We use to use the method to keep people away from booze.
That is the point. This is NOT your choice to make for anyone other than yourself.
I assume you do not support the fact that our military is in a far away land killing people. You either believe your simple quote or you do not. Which is it?
I see you are in favor the inane obtusification of of debate issue? You question is silly and does not merit an answer.
How about if she had died as result of the unterminated pregnancy? We can go round and round with hypotheticals. What is the point?
My personal God: Who is he? He is my personal God. What more can I say?
DO YOU SUPPORT PP's involvement in other countries?
Yes. All women deserve to have free choice.
Why is YOUR viewpoint tolerant and mine intolerant?
I do not want to play that word twisting game anymore. We have gone round and round on this tolerance issue. If you have not got it by now, you never will
I led you to another thread with pictures of aborted babies.....please answer me on that one.
What is there to answer? It is someone's silly idea of a way to limit free choice.
In which category do I fall, as far as you're concerned?
You tell me. Only you know what is in your heart.
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.