FDA unleashes new threat to human babies

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

[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.

[toenail]

"...how do you justify the public display of what you believe are dead bodies?"

The same way we can, and should, display pictures of what the Einsatzgrupen and other Nazi's did -- to make sure that people understand that there are vile, evil people who intend to harm others.

You are either an accomplished troll, or you're one of the most exasperating, willfully-ignorant people I've ever encountered. If you really thought that abortion is good, then you'd be posting pictures all day long, showing what bad things abortionists have gotten rid of. If I had a picture of my ex-appendix, I'd show it. "Look at that. The damned thing almost killed me." You could show one of your non-human babies and say, "Look at that. That damned thing almost cost me from having to find a babysitter while I go to night school."

If you'd like a more in-depth explanation (and you'll probably need a life jacket in any explanation more than ankle-deep), then please visit the Center for Bioethical Reform. While you're there, you may want to look at Planned Parenthood's back-alley abortions.

[KentuckyWoman]

That is a groundless and absurd statement that has no business in rational debate Oh!! Pardon me!!

How is putting forth a thought phrased as a question groundless and absurd?

Having dealt with quite a few of the "pro-murder" crowd over the years, I have found that a goodly portion of those who so mindlessly support the killing of unborn CHILDREN do so because they, themselves have taken a trip down that road (for whatever reason) and continue to justify their own actions by becoming advocates of others making the same mistakes. (sorry about the run-on sentence)

I merely wanted to know if others who are posting here have, perchance, run across the same basis for the mindset...

[Artist]

HUGE bump.

[toenail]

"I merely wanted to know if others who are posting here have, perchance, run across the same basis for the mindset..."

Kate Michelman's Benediction

[pcl]

If you'd like a more in-depth explanation

I am not going to follow that link just satisfy you ghoulish needs.

Protest all you want. Just know that everytime you show your pornography to someone who is not of like mind, they think you are very sick. Watch their eyes. You will see it there. The disgust you see is about you.

[toenail]

"Protest all you want. Just know that everytime you show your pornography to someone who is not of like mind, they think you are very sick. Watch their eyes. You will see it there. The disgust you see is about you."

Pornography? Does that turn you on? You're one sick individual.

[pcl]

God requires abortion.

[pcl]

Pornography? Does that turn you on?

No. That is why I am not clicking on your links.

[toenail]

"God requires abortion."

I don't give a flip about your nonsensical theological ruminations (or anyone else's, for that matter). With your complete and dismal ignorance on the matter (e.g. "I don't know what partial-birth abortion is"), is it no surprise that your exegetical skills on the subject are also lacking? The text doesn't even mention a pregnant woman.

And this is quite tiresome. If facts and logic don't affect you, then I'm moving on. I have more meaningful conversations with my cats.

Good day.

[MHGinTN]

I merely wanted to know if others who are posting here have, perchance, run across the same basis for the mindset... 322 posted by KentuckyWoman Lady, it is a commonly exploited phenomenon. NARAL and the NOW death cultists holding abortion as the woman's rite depend on the guilt keeping the doorway to the heart closed. There are several organizations that deal with this guilt, to share the love of the Lord God with these women (and a scant few men), for healing. I believe one is called Rachael's Daughters; the Catholic Church has many contact points, not the least of which is the average Priest ... God loves the sinner while hating the sin. The ghouls promoting abortion depend on blunting this truth for those they have succeeded in recruiting into the exclusive death club that promotes a woman hiring a serial killer to off her unborn child(children).

[pcl]

I don't give a flip about your nonsensical theological ruminations

I am not surprised. There have been numerous people who have been willing to to argue everything I have posted. Everything except that particular posting about Numbers 5:11-31

The fact that no one is willing to even try to refute it tells me that I have indeed found the Achillie's heel of the Christian theory that the god and the bible do not support abortion.

[toenail]

http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/square/chapel/safehaven/resources.htm"

[toenail]

"The fact that no one is willing to even try to refute it tells me that I have indeed found the Achillie's heel of the Christian theory that the god and the bible do not support abortion."

You might get more of a response if you actually showed that the text is referring to a pregnant woman at all.

[pcl]

You might get more of a response if you actually showed..

Nice punt, but you lost yardage. The "Belly swelling and thigh rotting" means what to you? The Hebrews considered the fetus as part of the "mother's thigh."

[Artist]

"The fact that no one is willing to even try to refute it tells me that I have indeed found the Achillie's heel of the Christian theory that the god and the bible do not support abortion."

Well, once again, you would be wrong. I'll spend time addressing this only for the sake of someone else reading this thread who might think you actually might have a point. I do not expect my answer to change your mind... you think the Bible is a fairy tale and yet you claim enough authority in your interpetation of it to prove to your satisfaction that we Christians pro-lifers must be blind idiots. So for the sake of others who might be reading this, here goes:

1. The Numbers passage is about a test for infidelity, it is not instructions as to how to perform an abortion.

2. Even if it were saying that an abortion is justified in the case of infidelity, it would be God who is doing the killing, not a woman making a "choice about her reproductive rights." This would not support abortion on demand.

3. Nothing in the passage would indicate that the unborn is not a human being.

4. Pro-choicers should be uncomfortable interpreting this as Biblical justification for abortion since the husband and a male priest force the suspected woman into a test that could result in a miscarriage.....hardly a pro-choice situation.

5. It is not clear from the original Hebrew what "your thigh shrivel and your belly swell" means. It may refer to a miscarriage, but it may also mean that the woman would have a miscarrying womb and barrenness as a result of her infidelity. That would explain why 5:28b says that if she were not unfaithful, she "will be able to have children. (BTW, I can read Biblical Hebrew; can you pcl?)

So your Numbers passage does not support a Biblical view of abortion. Nor do any other passages pro-aborts like to drag forward in their cause.... I know, I've heard them all. If any lurkers have other questions, I would be happy to spend time answering them.

I hope this is helpful to you pcl.

Husband of Artist

[MHGinTN]

Cervical cancer has a similar effect on a woman's body as it develops and spreads involving the lymphatic system heavily. I lost my maternal grandmother to the disease; she wouldn't go to a physician until she was taken to the hospital to die!

[Hajman]

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

I was just giving some basic facts.

• Human is dictionary-defined as Homo Sapien. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself under Human[Noun].
  
  
• Homo Sapien is a biological term for the designation of a genus/species. The protocol to define this is Taxonomy. Taxonomy defines a species in such a way that it applies to the individual from conception to death (and beyond). Taxonomy categorizes them by their adult attributes, but the classification is given to the organism at any stage of life (fetus, child, adult, etc), because it assumes the attributes of the organism based on their adult stage of life. Don't believe me? Look up how Taxonomy catagorizes organisms on the internet.
  
  
• Breathing, generally speaking, is the intake of good air, and the expelling of bad air. Specifically, in humans, breathing is the very same thing..except for the extra fact it uses lungs. In plants, they use leaves. In fish, gills are used. Breathing through lungs isn't a requirement for life. Respiration is. Respiration is dictionary defined as The placing of air or dissolved gases in intimate contact with the circulating medium of a multicellular organism. Breathing is simply one way to naturally respirate. Exchanging air in the umbilical cord and placenta is another. Artifical respiration (like assisted breathing, or Iron Lungs) are an artifical means of respirating. How a human (as a whole organism) respirates isn't the issue when it comes to defining a piece of life. That he does, is. If breathing through lungs was required to have life, fish and plants wouldn't be considered alive (if you have a definition of life, you must apply it to all organisms equally, for it is a general term, by nature). That's just a plain silly conclusion.
  
  
• No doctor would consider death at the time when one stops breathing. There is no biological or medical definition of life to support this conclusion of death at the time when a human stops using his lungs to take oxygen in. You're going to have to back up your statement if you want it to be taken seriously (especially considering how Human and Respiration are defined). Everyone on this board recognizes that a person is still alive and human, even on an artifical respirator that by-passes the lungs.

I'm not trying to confuse the issue. The above are recognized facts, from both the pro-life and pro-abortion sides on this board. I'm just letting you know this so you can know how we think. If you keep using definitions or statements (like "If you stop breathing through your lungs, you're dead") that are unfounded (and unsupported), then you will get called on them and flamed. If you'd like to challenge these definitions, feel free. However, if you do, we all except you to support them by facts and logic. Your challenge by itself means nothing to us aside from your opinion. What I've listed above is the recognized dictionary/medical/biological concepts behind the terms defined. Accept them or challenge them. You may do either. But whatever you do, back your statements up. This is just to help you debate others on this site, for this is what others, and I, on this board except from everyone. Also, by using your own unsupported definitions, all the conclusions you come up from them will be logically invalid.

Also, I noticed you skirted around the real issue. I'll repost it here: What makes breathing through lungs special enough to base the definition of Human off of?

Thanks for your time.

-The Hajman-

[pcl]

Thank you. I appreciate the fact that someone was willing to take a critical look at this scripture and give a well thought out response.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Chapter 5 deals with maintaining purity and health of the Israelite race. Verses 11-31 deals with maintaining the purity of the marital relationship. It was not just the concern of the parties involved, but of the whole community. It was a severe test that no woman would wish to endure, and no husband would wish his wife to endure.

Such trials by ordeal were common in the ancient world. Trials in other cultures utilized magic and sorcery. This test for adultery, however, safeguarded a wife from an unjust accusation by her husband. It served to remove suspicion and doubt.

If the woman proved to be guilty she was exhiled and lost the ability to concieve. No where does it say she was caused to abort the child if present, only the future ability to concieve is dealt with(future tenses-- will cause you be barren or have a miscarrying womb). This too was harsh for the times, as the inability to have children, reduced her value significantly if not totally, as great value was put on procreation of the species.

There is no biblical record of such a test ever being used.

If you still want to cling to your abortion belief, then I ask you to read thru it again and see that the final judgement of guilt or innocence was to come from God, not man.

Then ask yourself, how many of today's abortions are performed by God?

[pcl]

What makes breathing through lungs special enough to base the definition of Human off of?

Because that is what I believe. I really do not care if I am the only person in the world that believes this. The belief is useful to me in dealing with the complex issue of abortion. This belief coupled with what I had said about the potential of the fetus becoming a human.

Despite the way I may have sounded, I am not a rabid pro-abortionist.

I would accept some limits to abortion. For example, the only good reasons I can see for a second or third trimester abortion would be either the continued pregnancy would hurt the mother's health or the fetus is malformed to such a degree that life would be seveare trial for that potential human and those around it.

I believe that first trimester abortions should be essentially unhindered by law no matter what the physical state of the fetus or the mother. I would agree to requiring the woman-with-fetus sign an informed consent form that stated she she had read a pamphlet about abortion. My image of this pamphlet would be similar to the ones we use for voting. The two sides of the issue would write their point of view. The two sides would also have section where they could rebut the other sides original statement.

I do not personally believe that abortion should be used as a substitute for responsible birth control but this is personal belief which I would never impose on any other human being.

It has been interesting debating (most of) you about this subject. I have learned a lot about abortion that I never knew before. I think I have also had some good insights into the mental processes of the no-abortion-of-any-sort-should-be-legal group. This group has always been a mystery to me. I also feel much better about the future of our nation now that I know that only about 15% (plus or minus 2%) of the nation are in that no-abortions-ever group.

If FR does not kick me out, I may stop in on abortion threads every once in while, but I feel I am pretty much done with this issue.

Thank you all for you tachings and insights. (Yes even you)