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.
No good reason other than having voted Repulican for the 35 years. Not good reason other than I do not abide by most of the liberal ideals. You and the rest of the FRs can express all the doubt you want. I know what I am in my heart.
Trust me, hon, your ilk are not in the majority
In some other thread it was just shown that one in every two women in the USA have had abortions.
I have noticed how you have come out harshly against the Bible
I am no more harsh on the bible that I am on the Qur'an or Grimes Fairy Tales.
What, do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died on the Cross for your sins, and that He is the only way to Heaven? Do you not believe anything about His Life, His miracles, His ressurrection?
Absolutely not. What is wrong with that? Do you need me to believe in your myths to validate you your own beliefs?
Try reading the Bible
I have read the bible. I have also read the Qur'an, The Teachings of Buddha, Grimes Fairy Tales and other interesting books.
Have you ever read Exodus 21:22-2?
This is one place in the bible that makes a clear distinction between a woman and a fetus. While the life of a fetus has some value, it does not have anywhere near the value of the life of a woman.
You god is telling you something you need to hear. You should listen.
Here is the scripture you misquoted! Why am I not surprised.
If the facts of the passage make any difference to you, check out The Bible and the Bull's-Eye on the Baby. You'll see, beyond any honest doubt, that the Bible is univocal in affirming humanity from conception to death — and beyond.
Dan
Seems pretty clear to me that your god is condoning abort.
So, what is your special twist on this?
No serious injury to the WIFE. The fetus is dead. The dead fetus is worth what the husband and court determint.
But if there is serious injury
If there is serious injury to the WIFE, then kill the sucker.
It is a sad day when a non-christian has to teach a christian how to read his on doctrine.
If you haven't been paying attention (and obviously you haven't) the U.S. is hated around the world for doing exactly that. The U.S. has LONG used contraceptives and abortion as population control measures in other countries, not infrequently by outright coercion and force. Go look at what our government has been doing to undermine the Catholic Church in Latin America. I'd start here.
Hi pcl!!! Didja have a good night's sleep? Hope all's well with you today.
Remember a couple days ago when you and I started communicating with each other & I said you were mad at God? Well, methinks, with all your nasty, INTOLERABLE, views of lots of peoples beliefs.....that I WAS right. You ARE mad at God for something. Careful, careful, careful. You're messing with fire.
Thank you for you deep insight into my mind and heart. I am sorry to say that I can not come back at you with anything about you. I am not able to know much about you from the few hundred words you have posted here.
Maybe we should meet in nice quiet resturant at a candle lit table with a fine wine and ....
Ops, sorry, I was thinking of something else.
My post was a direct counter to those of you who use twisted semantics. Remember? No equivocation?
"equivocation \E*quiv`o*ca"tion\, n. The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead."
I refer to any human from the time of conception until the time when discipline starts as a "baby." But arguing over a term like "baby" serves no one, which is why a straightforward, objective, scientific description of human development is to be preferred. Otherwise, we end up chasing theological and philosophical phantasms of your own imagination.
No, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the prophets, above all Jesus Christ, and below all me, does not condone our killing a child at any age because the child is inconvenient, imperfect, or had a bad parent.
One passage at a time. You grant that Exodus 21 proves that unborn children are afforded the same protections as any other human, and that their murderers placed under the same sanctions as any other murderers?
Dan
Oh please. I did not say that and you know it. That is slimey to infer that I did. That is how liberals work-leave me OUT of that kind of falsity.
What I said was that sexual activity is a choice and that pregnancy, a new life begun, is a consequence, wanted or unwanted, of this activity when it is a CHOICE.
Never did I talk about forced sexual activity. And YOU know this. Grow up and start using a little honesty.
Dictionaries record the word as it is used, with variations. If you're talking to a pregnant woman, you don't ask "How's the fetus?" (I don't, anyway.) You ask, "So, how's the baby?"
I use the word "baby" in one way; you use the word "baby" in another. But I doubt we'll have any disagreement at all over what DNA is, or what a chromosome is, or how to count to 46 (maybe little more or less, in some cases). We shouldn't have any disagreement at all in discussing X and Y chromosomes, or whether or not a human organism is genotypically male or female (from conception).
All else is semantic games. I can unequivocally state that every human organism not posing a clear and immediate threat to another's life has a natural and unassailable human right to live, without discriminating against that human on any basis, including: number of cells, time in existence, light-absorption level of the skin, presence or absence of a Y chromosome, or physical proximity to another human organism.
"Ambiguity is the devil's volleyball." -- Emo Phillips.
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.