(Prolifer)ations 8-8-08
First, I’m sad (for us) to announce this will be intern Colleen W.’s last (Prolifer)ations post.
Colleen is a graduate student and is heading back to school after a summer immersed in pro-life work in DC at Students for Life of America and Feminists for Life, among others. We’ll sure miss her. She found great posts to spotlight. Thanks for your work here, Colleen!
If you – as a reader or a college student wanting an internship – are interesting in writing (Prolifer)ations – please contact me for more information. The task requires 4-6 hours a week.
And now, from the world of pro-life blogs…
During the surgery, doctors entered the amniotic sack using a kind of miniature “telescope.” Occasionally, to their surprise, a fetus will actually grab on to the scope in the middle of the procedure.
“The fetus will reach up and wonder what this scope is,” Moise said. “And even though his or her eyes are fused so they can’t really see the scope, they’ll grab the scope sometimes because it’s an object in their cavity.”
Suzanne comments: “Can you just imagine what happens during an abortion, when a syringe of potassium chloride heads for their heart?”
[Photo of prenatal surgery courtesy of discoveriesinmedicine.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
13 years ago I had an amnio, and as soon as the needle was inserted, my son grabbed for it, and quite quickly too. The doctor had to pull it out of his reach right away (which *stung* a bit) and said “they tend to do that a lot”. She also told me 18 weeks was early enough to take care of it if they found anything wrong. (I agreed to the amnio because I mistakenly thought it was not only about abortion, I thought it was a test to find possible health problems like anyone has medical tests.)
“The fetus will reach up and wonder what this scope is,” Moise said. “And even though his or her eyes are fused so they can’t really see the scope, they’ll grab the scope sometimes because it’s an object in their cavity.”
how can that be, it’s just a blob of cells..
Pansy: that’s very interesting about the amnio!
About the heart killing method: There seems to be no end to the cruel ways doctors seek to kill babies.
I just read the abstract for the new “feticide” method. I can’t imagine the incredible pain this must cause the unborn child. I felt nauseous. God have mercy on the researchers who studied this method.
I know Patricia, some real sickos….
The fetus will reach up and wonder what this scope is,” Moise said. “And even though his or her eyes are fused so they can’t really see the scope, they’ll grab the scope sometimes because it’s an object in their cavity.”
how can that be, it’s just a blob of cells..
Posted by: Jasper at August 8, 2008 6:58 AM
****************************
My thoughts exactly, Jasper. Oh, but hey, at least it won’t “feel” anything–
like this, for instance: “blood aspiration from the fetal heart until cardiac arrest.” (quoted from the second link above)
How would you like for someone to do that to YOU? (And it makes me wonder how something can have cardiac arrest if it is, indeed, not a developing human being. hmm…)
Not only are abortionists butchers who chop up the unborn, now they’re vampires as well, sucking the very life source from their intact bodies.
I feel sick. It’s a good thing I haven’t eaten anything yet. :(
That was also my thought……vampires……
This is disgusting. And that’s why those of us that are against abortion must continue to be a voice for the unborn.
hmmm….it’s been more than 12 hours since this posted and no pro-abort/ pro-choicer to “defend” the abortionists’ method?
Is there no end to the depravity?? I am sick.
RSD, what needs to be defended? I don’t see any pro-choicer expressing any uneasiness about any of this.
You mean the procedure doesn’t offend you in any way, Hal?
I am sickened by this also. I have worked in healthcare for years and know first hand how bloody and gory a D&C procedure is for women who are NOT having an abortion, with abortions it is even worse. I have held the hands of women and comforted women who have had spontaneous miscarriages during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters because they knew instinctively they had “lost a baby”, not a piece of tissue. And to think all of the so-called “pro-choicers” who have stated the lies that babies in utero don’t feel any pain, don’t have enough brain development to know anything so therefore it is a woman’s “right to choose” to perform these horrible procedures on innocent human beings. If this was being done to unborn whales or eagles someone would get arrested because they are “protected species” deserving protection but not unborn babies they deserve to die if their mothers do not want them or if they are “imperfect”. Although it is difficult, I want to encourage all prolifers to try not to become too disheartened by this. Keep up the good work you are doing. God help our nation and our world. Thank you Colleen for posting this. Sorry you have to leave, but God bless you as you move on.
How absolutely disgusting. There is no “not disgusting” way to kill a baby, but the thought of sucking the blood out of their heart until they have a heart attack…Makes me want to cry.
Rom 1:30 “inventors of evil things”
RSD, what needs to be defended? I don’t see any pro-choicer expressing any uneasiness about any of this.
Posted by: Hal at August 8, 2008 12:31 PM
There IS no way to defend this so pro-choicers choose to be blinded to the horror of abortion and/or can’t even begin to defend such inhuman behavior. This is equivalent to animals eating their own, not that I want to get into another discussion about animals… The difference is humans can repent for their discretions and animals cannot.
Colleen, sorry to see you go! Thank you for all of the great posts you did in the time you could!
wait, that’s INdiscretions, not discretions.
I wonder if they sell the blood they collect from the unborn multiples?
You mean the procedure doesn’t offend you in any way, Hal?
Posted by: RSD at August 8, 2008 12:33 PM
No. I assume four doctors from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey no more about how best to do this than I do.
How best to kill a child?! Wow.
Carla, you can’t still be surprised what abortion does can you?
“Methods of selective feticide differ according to chorionicity due to the presence of intertwin anastomoses in monochorionic placentas. Intracardiac KCl injection is commonly used in dichorionic pregnancies. Here, we describe an alternative method for selective feticide in dichorionic pregnancies by blood aspiration from the fetal heart until cardiac arrest.”
I don’t see any reason to prefer KCl injection to blood aspiration. This is not an article about how to “kill more babies,” but I assume a safer method of doing what is already being done.
Certainly not safer for the unborn child.
I can always be surprised by those that support it.
Carla,
I am not surprised that the pro-aborts support it…what always surprise me is the reasoning why they support such a cruel, sadistic and barbaric procedure:
as Hal said: “doctors… (know) more about how best to do this than I do.”
why not support this? Do you have any evidence that blood aspiration is more “cruel, sadistic and barbaric” than KCl injection? If not, what’s your objection?
Hal, do YOU have any evidence it is Not??
Maybe we can try the procedure on those who support it and see if they like it or not?
They won’t?
But…but…why?
I don’t have access to the article itself. It is clear, however, that this is an alternative method for “selective feticide.” I assume the doctors have a reason for promoting an alternative method. It must have some advantage over the standard method. Why are you guys so bent out of shape by this? Does injecting potassium chloride really seem so much better to you?
Why are you guys so bent out of shape by this? Does injecting potassium chloride really seem so much better to you?
Hal, I don’t think you can possibly not understand what our problem is with it.
Neither one sounds “better” to us, Hal, and you of all people know that.
Hal, Isn’t the point here that either one of these methods kills a baby and is equally deplorable?
A comment on the ABC News website to which Jill made a link above:
“Dear ABC News……..Why did you people HIDE this valuable story deep in your website??? This is a fantastic story and video…….. showing that even you accept the fetus as “babies not yet born”, according to Charles Gibson
You mean the procedure doesn’t offend you in any way, Hal?
Posted by: RSD at August 8, 2008 12:33 PM
No. I assume four doctors from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey no more about how best to do this than I do.
Posted by: Hal at August 8, 2008 1:53 PM
First of all, I’m not surprised by your reaction Hal. After all you killed two of your 4 children so why WOULD this bother you. It would be completely out of character, if it did.
Secondly, maybe the advantage is that it kills quicker and more effectively – you know in the same way that gas was used to kill Jews quicker and more efficiently than just machine-gunning them?
I consider you totally depraved Hal.
why not support this? Do you have any evidence that blood aspiration is more “cruel, sadistic and barbaric” than KCl injection? If not, what’s your objection?
Posted by: Hal at August 8, 2008 3:42 PM
Think about it Hal? Sucking the blood out of the heart which is a large muscle, would starve it of oxygen. This to my mind would cause cramping and severe pain, not to mention the feeling of suffocation. A severe heart-attack in a baby: except you have a healthy young growing heart!
Maybe you can volunteer for the procedure to PROVE that it isn’t so and is a painless way to kill an unborn baby? Huh, what about it?
The SAME NUMBER of “babies” are being killed. From what I gather, to try to save another baby in the womb so they don’t both die. Everyone was up in arms. Sick sickos sickening we heard.
Then we heard this:
hmmm….it’s been more than 12 hours since this posted and no pro-abort/ pro-choicer to “defend” the abortionists’ method?
Posted by: RSD at August 8, 2008 12:20 PM
Only then did I post. You see, RSD was offended by the “method.” Not by the fact that it was an abortion. So, I simply stated (over and over) that I don’t see this method as being any more objectionable than any other method.
And then I hear:
Hal, Isn’t the point here that either one of these methods kills a baby and is equally deplorable?
Posted by: Janet at August 8, 2008 4:50 PM
That could be “the point here,” but that wasn’t the point RSD was making. He seemed offended by this particular method. That made no sense to me. Still doesn’t Cya.
Hal, I totally get what you’re saying, which is why I mentioned it. :)
Is it necessary to keep bringing up Hal’s past? Maybe he doesn’t mind, but I feel bad for him every time it is mentioned. He certainly doesn’t need to be reminded and (IMHO) deserves to receive the same amount of as any of us. Just my two cents….
Correction:
He certainly doesn’t need to be reminded and (IMHO) deserves to receive the same amount of RESPECT as any of us.
Thats “respect”! (I give up, I can’t type!)
Janet, Patricia, I also do feel bad for Hal every time it is brought up. I don’t know why. He advocates abortion every time he comes here, and I probably should feel angry with him, just like I feel about others who advocate abortion – but something about Hal makes me feel that he comes here to find some kind of closure over what happened. I’ve always felt like he is hiding a deep sadness, for some reason. There’s nothing he says that really implies that directly, but it’s just a feeling I get about him.
you guys are sweet. But don’t worry, I don’t feel disrespected here. I’m treated very nicely most of the time. Even Hisman has stopped the major insults.
I don’t mind being reminded of the abortions. Doesn’t bother me at all. It is usually, like today, along the lines of “well, I’d expect that view from someone like you who killed two of his own children…”
I don’t think my views are much different than the millions of pro choice men and women who have never had an abortion. Sometimes you guys seem to think that someone who doesn’t regret an abortion is seriously flawed or deluding themselves or hiding their pain.
I’ve certainly done things in my life that I regret (like most of us) but I truly don’t have mixed feelings about the abortions.
Maybe that’s why I come here, to be a voice for satisfied abortion customers.
I’ll be offline for awhile, not ignoring you. Have a great weekend everyone.
We should not be surprised by the new inventions of evil in our society. God’s Word predicts it. This article is incredibly heartbreaking. There are no words to describe the pain those babies must feel.
Thank you Colleen for your contributions to the site, and God bless you always.
Sometimes you guys seem to think that someone who doesn’t regret an abortion is seriously flawed or deluding themselves or hiding their pain.
That isn’t it, Hal. There’s something else, about your demeanor, your presence.
If it were just the abortions, I’d feel the same way about Erin…but I don’t.
Have a great weekend too, Hal.
Bethany; I have absolutely NO concerns what-so-ever about bringing up the fact that Hal killed 2 of his precious children.
And apparently, it doesn’t seem to bother him at all. Some one has to be the voice of these two dead children.
This tells me his conscience is completely DEAD.
To brag that he is a satisfied abortion customer -in my mind he is NO different than the abortionist sticking needles into the little babies hearts and drawing blood out of them.
In fact, right now, to me Hal is proud of killing his children just as he might be proud to have chosen a nice new suit. Sorry, but there is just no other way to put it.
A man should be a protector – especially of his children. When a father can kill his children without even blinking an eye – it’s very hard to have respect for that person.
Well said, Patricia.
I must say, God bless Jill for putting up with the spiritually sick pro-aborts who post comments on this blog.
I agree with you Patricia. Until his heart is changed and he admits to himself what he has done, everything you said is true.
That’s just it, though, Bethany – there’s no “admitting,” only taking on the same constructs of belief. If there is true “spiritual sickness,” it lies in needing such things in the first place, things which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary.
Hal knows he doesn’t need it, that’s all.
Patricia, Bethany,
I was disappointed in Hal’s response. Hard to comprehend. Silly me.
Doug,
Can you say that in plain English instead of “doug-speak”?
(Sorry, I’m a little annoyed right now that anyone can tolerate abortion!) Imagine saying that to your nieces. You’d better not!!!!
Brilliant 180 there Bethany.
Going from “pitying” Hal and not being fond of constantly nagging him about the abortions to changing your mind at Patricia’s rantings.
No, I agreed with Patricia all along, but I have always felt sympathy with Hal for what I perceive to be a deep sadness. Until he realizes and accepts what he’s done as wrong, Patricia is right, although I can’t help but feel sorry for him. I’m sorry, I can’t change the way I feel.
Rae,
Don’t be so hard on Bethany, empathy is one of her strong suits and there’s no shame in that.
Janet, I was also very disappointed with Hal’s response. Made me realize that maybe I am just a little over-sympathetic towards him.
Bethany and Rae,
Have a good day!
Janet, you have a good day too!
I don’t know if you guys ever watch “The Office”, but if you have, Toby from the Office is exactly who I imagine Hal to be in my mind’s eye. That type of quiet demeanor, etc. Everything about him makes me think of Hal for some reason. I even once almost typed “Toby” in a response to Hal, before I caught my error.
What was so disappointing about Hal’s response? Is there any response besides, “You guys are right, I regret it!” that wouldn’t have disappointed you?
I freaking love Toby, by the way.
Maybe he could have left out “Maybe that’s why I come here, to be a voice for satisfied abortion customers.” , on a topic where we’re talking about people sucking blood out of babies hearts, Alexandra, I don’t know. Just imagine how it feels for us.
I freaking love Toby, by the way.
I love when he gets ahold of Michael Scott’s diary. lol
….And when Michael pushes Toby’s food tray off the table when Toby invited him to eat with him. I’m so looking forward to the next season of The Office.
I imagine that was probably to answer the frequent accusations that he’s here looking for some kind of closure, or because deep down he regrets what he did. The next obvious question then, if he says that he’s not here out of hidden regret or trauma, is, “Why are you here?” So I can see why he’d want to answer it.
I think we’d all do better to imagine how it feels for the people we’re talking to, personally.
I love when Michael is trying to offer Toby up for a transfer and he’s trying to make him sound awesome but after about five seconds he’s like, “Gahhhh I can’t do this anymore, Toby’s the worst, that was a bluff.” Toby’s the best!
LOL I love that one! The whole thing with Michael vs Toby so much is too funny.
Can you say that in plain English instead of “doug-speak”? (Sorry, I’m a little annoyed right now that anyone can tolerate abortion!) Imagine saying that to your nieces. You’d better not!!!!
Janet, given the number of my nieces, it’s entirely possible that one day some will have unwanted pregnancies. If so, I would want the best for them, and that includes having the freedom to legally choose what they want.
I haven’t talked with any of them about abortion, but some are getting to the age when it’s not out of the question.
On the “admitting,” it’s a far different thing to acknowledge physical reality, logic, etc. – things which are true for all of us, versus taking on the same unprovable beliefs that some hold. Hal knows he doesn’t need to do that.
Doug, If you do talk to your nieces, you will be forming their opinion to match yours which is unfair to them. Telling them you think abortion is OK is prejudicial and doesn’t allow them to make up their own mind.
Doug, If you do talk to your nieces, you will be forming their opinion to match yours which is unfair to them. Telling them you think abortion is OK is prejudicial and doesn’t allow them to make up their own mind.
Posted by: Janet at August 9, 2008 4:54 PM
You’re not serious. Would you not tell your daughters or nieces that abortion is “wrong?” would you allow them to make up their own mind?
However, I never talked to my daughters about abortion (until recently) and they are both solidly pro-choice. Of course, they’ve never met anyone who thinks differently on that issue.
Doug, If you do talk to your nieces, you will be forming their opinion to match yours which is unfair to them. Telling them you think abortion is OK is prejudicial and doesn’t allow them to make up their own mind.
Posted by: Janet at August 9, 2008 4:54 PM
You’re not serious. Would you not tell your daughters or nieces that abortion is “wrong?” would you allow them to make up their own mind?
However, I never talked to my daughters about abortion (until recently) and they are both solidly pro-choice. Of course, they’ve never met anyone who thinks differently on that issue.
Posted by: Hal at August 9, 2008 6:10 PM
Let’s define prejudicial to show I am serious.
1 : tending to injure or impair : detrimental
2 : leading to premature judgment or unwarranted opinion
and I would tell my daughters the truth that abortion is not wrong. and the answer to your question is 3) both of the above.
They probably have met people who are pro-life. But not too many, and no one close to them.
Doug, If you do talk to your nieces, you will be forming their opinion to match yours which is unfair to them. Telling them you think abortion is OK is prejudicial and doesn’t allow them to make up their own mind.
Janet, just a couple days ago you were on my case because I “never give my opinion” – something to that effect.
I wouldn’t force my opinion on them – I’d lay out as much as I know about the debate and the physical reality behind it.
I would be way more fair than any pro-lifer I know, who as far as I know wouldn’t be able to be nearly as “neutral” as me.
If one of my nieces think that human life is sacred, etc., I am not going to disagree with them. Can you say the same for a relative of yours that felt it’s not necessarily that way?
Doug: 8:25: Janet, just a couple days ago you were on my case because I “never give my opinion” – something to that effect.
OK.
I would be way more fair than any pro-lifer I know, who as far as I know wouldn’t be able to be nearly as “neutral” as me.
You are the king of neutral. :)
If one of my nieces think that human life is sacred, etc., I am not going to disagree with them. Can you say the same for a relative of yours that felt it’s not necessarily that way?
No.
I have no problem with draining the heart. The outcome is the same.
Thought for the day: If a Chinese woman thinks her boobs are bigger than they are, does she have delusions of glandeur?
Janet, have to laugh on the “neutral,” but for my nieces I’d really be that way, quite a bit. I want what’s best for them, and that could well mean not ending a given pregnancy.
If they’d ask me, I’d give my opinion, but it wouldn’t just be that “abortion is okay” – I’d lay out what is a more complex issue than that.
SoMG,
:: chuckling ::
That was baaaaad.