FDA unleashes new threat to human babies

American Life League, Inc. ^ | Release issued 21 Nov 01

[homeschool mama]

***now that you have started to direct people on how they should think, when they are permitted to modifiy beliefs, etc.***

I have not directed anybody to modify beliefs. You assume wrong. I have not directed anybody how to think either. Your anti Christian rhetoric is intolerant. I thought you were open to people believing however they want to believe. You know....relativism.

One thing is true. You're lost and living in a vast wilderness of your soul.

[toenail]

"I am not the one that talks about sicsors [sic] through the head, vacuums in the womb and gleefully shows pictures of dead fetuses. Over the years I have come to believe that some of the so called pro-life faction have morbid fascination this sort of gore. The prima facia [sic] evidence is overwhelming."

Uncomfortable with reality, are you? The prima facie evidence suggests that the pro-death faction gets exposed for the liars they are, every time they object to the showing of something they think is a moral good, a natural right, a clump of disposable tissue, a non-crime against a non-person.

You said earlier that you'd die to protect an abortionist killing a baby. You're being incredibly hypocritical to object to a rather mild depiction of the sort of act you so strongly believe in.

[pcl]

anti Christian rhetoric you've spewed on Free Republic is in direct contrast to this statement.

Oh my. what is the world coming to. Now. only Christians are permitted compassion. If that is case, then we are in deep trouble. I see very little compassion comming from you and a whole lot of other Christians on this board right now.

[MHGinTN]

The offerings from this one are some of the sickest errors I've ever run across at FR. Not breathing equated with 'dies', as in stops breathing during open heart surgery. IT, pcl, on the one hand says only the breathing fetus/neonate is an actual human, yet the pcl thing uses an example where the heart-lung machine is doing the 'breathing' (actually blood-gas exchange) just the way the woman's body does during the time in the womb. BUT this pcl thing wants to use this example as a means to promote serial killing as okay since the infant in the womb is on life support/blood-gas exchange from the woman's body, but the surgeon/anesthetist doing the same procedure is/isn't death?! Simply the most amazing mental gyrations I've ever seen! It takes a very primitive, uneducated, agenda driven sick mind to make such repeated errors and claim 'righteous' indignation.

Think about people who die (stop breathing) when put on a heart lung machine during an operation. At the end of the operation, the doctor restarts the heart, the patient starts breathing again and is once again a living human. A modern miracle that puts the Chirst's fabled miracles to shame. 300 posted by pcl

If any further irrational posts follow, I will get a kick out of following the thread, but I don't intend responding to such abject self-righteous idiocy as pcl continues to spew forth, compiling error upon error.

[homeschool mama]

...and we're supposed to just lay down and take your bashing?! Get real.

[pcl]

change beliefs as you see fit

Would you be so fast to condem me if I changed my belief such that I believed in Jesus Christ and that abortion's are murder? Relativism indeed!

isn't that a belief system of the Unitarian Church?

. No, but read my bio.

[homeschool mama]

***Think about people who die (stop breathing) when put on a heart lung machine during an operation. At the end of the operation, the doctor restarts the heart, the patient starts breathing again and is once again a living human. A modern miracle that puts the Chirst's fabled miracles to shame. 300 POSTED BY PCL***

More anti Christian bashing by PCL...

Amazing, isn't it MHGinTN?

[homeschool mama]

bump!!!!!!!!!!

btw...who's Sandy?

[MHGinTN]

Mmmm, Annie's scruffy looking dog?

[Hajman]

Think about people who die (stop breathing) when put on a heart lung machine during an operation. At the end of the operation, the doctor restarts the heart, the patient starts breathing again and is once again a living human. A modern miracle that puts the Chirst's fabled miracles to shame.

There's not a doctor out there that would accept this statement as anything but completely false. No doctor would claim a person dies when they stopped breathing. Hold your breath for 30 seconds. Do you become a non-human in those 30 seconds? Is it alright for someone to kill you in that time? The medical, biological and legal fields would all give a resounding no! to this. Life isn't dependent upon the lungs working. It's dependent upon the whole of the organism to sustain itself if allowed to get the air and nutrients it needs. Your only dying when you're body, as a whole, is unable to sustain itself when given air and nutrients (as when you go brain dead). Your only considered dead if all your major life processes stop (brain in the case of humans. Doctors realized long ago that a human may still be alive for a little while even after the heart and lungs stop working, if the brain functions.) I hate to say it, but I don't think I've seen a statement that's less based in reality. If you truely believe people die in operations, and come back to live when revived, then you'll stand alone in the medical and biological world.

It looks like you're confusing personhood (a philosophical state of being) with human (a term designating a specific species, defined as homo sapien. When it comes to defining species, science defines them from conception to after death.) Your arguments would be taken more seriously if you realized human is the species, and personhood is what one should try to be defining to show whether or not someone should be killed.

Also, you may want to look up the term breathing in a dictionary. It does mean using one's lungs to intake and expel air, but on a whole, it means to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes (Merriam-Webster's dictionary). This would include the fetus taking in air via the umbilical cord. However, I'm curious. Let's assume you're right and it requires air getting into lungs (not just using lungs, because the fetus starts to do that at about 12 weeks. It lung-breaths embryonic fluid). My question to you is this: Why is taking oxygen through lungs more special then taking oxygen in any other way? What makes it special enough to define human (or personhood in this case) by? I'll be looking foward to your answer.

-The Hajman-

[homeschool mama]

The images are views of stark reality!!! They're needed because people like YOU condone and support this type of BABY murder and need to know the truth. The translation of FETUS is BABY.

These images are important and needed to slap sense into people and show the TRUTH. Obviously you have no need for the truth...you prefer instead to support the murder of innocent BABIES.

The land of denial is well populated with people like you.

[homeschool mama]

I've read your bio. I've read your posts on FR. You are a model of contradiction. You're wacked.

[tortoise]

To me the issue is simple, we don't have the right to decide beforehand who is worthy to live or die.

Yet everyone does this every single day, "for convenience". You are giving nothing but platitudes really. Loving parents do things that vastly increase the odds of their children being killed every day for their own convenience. It is an inavoidable fact of life. A person doesn't have value based solely on their biological existence. Humans aren't even independent moral actors until they reach a certain age.

My real point is that any argument premised on full rights from conception has very bad consequences to you and I that are not being addressed. If you ascribe effectively unlimited moral value to ALL people, born or otherwise, then every parent is a criminal of the worst kind. If one doesn't accept the full consequences of ascribing these values to a fetus, then the argument is reduced to moral relativism which I believe most pro-lifers reject (I know I do). These problems have never been properly worked out and make the foundations of the pro-life movement shaky indeed if they cannot be addressed in reasonable manner.

[Judith Anne]

MHGinTN, yes, that's Sandy, or Erika, or any one of a number of other names. Same modus.

[Judith Anne]

Yep, that's Erika, or Sandy, or whatever he/she/it is going by these days.

[pcl]

I know many people who believe the so called "pro-life" people get some serious cheap thrills out of the morbid display of and contumely about fetal gore. Are you one of those that do get a tingly feeling from this crap? I don't know. Only you know what is in your heart and mind. I can only tell you what other people think you are thinking.

Aside from that, how do you justify the public display of what you believe are dead bodies? Not too long ago, there was famous race car driver, Dale Earnhardt, who was killed in an auto race. There was a group of people who wanted to publish his autopsy photos on the internet. You are no better then those ghouls if you really believe that what you are displaying are dead humans.

[pcl]

It looks like you're confusing personhood..

I am not at all confused. You are trying to confuse the issue but you are wasting your time.

[KentuckyWoman]

Thank you all for this enlightening thread. I must say that it's one of the best discussions on this subject that I have EVER seen.

Having said that, I would like to interject a thought here concerning "PCL": Has it crossed anyone's mind here that the reason PCL defends this horror so adamently is more due to a guilty conscience than any of the stated "reasons"? Just something to consider (IMHO).

[tortoise]

Has it crossed anyone's mind here that the reason PCL defends this horror so adamently is more due to a guilty conscience than any of the stated "reasons"?

That is a groundless and absurd statement that has no business in rational debate. This is not a defense of PCL per se, but a defense of rigorous and intelligent discussion. Baseless innuendo (i.e. the logical fallacy more commonly known as "ad hominem") reflects poorly on the arguments of those that use it.

[pcl]

Your anti Christian rhetoric is intolerant.

Your anti-free choice rhetoric is intolerant.

You distain of the Unitary Church was obvious.

Your intolerance for for other belief systems is sad.

Your lack of compassion is of no surprise.

hMama, this is not directed just to you. It is for all of you for whom the shoe fits. You know who you are.