You do realize that abortion no longer makes the top 10 list of issues Americans consider when picking a candidate?

That doesn't hold true for the pro lifers here.

heather- it also holds true that you guys are in that tiny little extremist voting group that doesn't sway elections. Kinda like the American Communist Party never wins anything.

Laura,

That goes both ways. Plenty who would say they support access to abortion if you ask them directly, would be more than happy to support a prolife candidate whose other positions they very much support. All the prolife Dems got reelected.

heather- it also holds true that you guys are in that tiny little extremist voting group that doesn't sway elections. Kinda like the American Communist Party never wins anything.

Posted by: Erin at November 2, 2007 12:57 PM

Not so fast.

Plenty of states have lots of prolife Dems who would not be elected if they were not voting prolife. Look at the states that are majority Dem, yet pass restrictions on abortion. Those Dems are voting for those restrictions because their constituents want them.

Abortion isn't a swaying issue. Balance is. Conservative voter base means the candidate needs more conservative policies. Abortion is only one of them.

Erin,

I agree.

Jill's post said about Coburn's opinion on the deficit:

"Still and all, this will be a hard topic for liberals to find anything to say about."

Huh? Wasn't it a Republican controlled Congress that turned an unprecedented surplus into the huge deficit? How does that make it a hard topic for "liberals" to say anything about? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point.

If it is better for babies to be aborted than to be born poor, then it is better for them to be aborted than to be born blind, deaf, with Down's syndrome, etc.

Coburn has just validated the arguments of those who believe abortion should be promoted in third-world countries to help prevent poverty.

Of course we could simply start eliminating some of the poor children who's ignorant parents were to stupid to realize that the debt would make their child's life worthless before they slipped into the world.

Why not just put all of the poor kids in a closet to die...

Interesting, a couple years ago the biggest issue was horrible lesbians running around Oklahoma highschools, preying on innocent women that might fall into their evil clutches. He wanted to warn other girls about this, in case they drop the soap in the shower. It's a huge problem, probably more dangerous than guns. He practically said so himself, by opposing the Brady Bill and related updates, including the more recent one calling for additional background checks that fell through the cracks with Virginia Tech.

And abortion was big for him then too, as we should exchange more evil for evil. "Abortions is evil," he cried, and then proceeded to say that the death penalty should be given for abortion doctors. Way to be pro-life, pal!

Hear, Hear Carol. Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter, so apparently, any deficit is okay, unless we want to blame the Democrats for it. (?)

Interesting, a couple years ago the biggest issue was horrible lesbians running around Oklahoma highschools, preying on innocent women that might fall into their evil clutches. He wanted to warn other girls about this, in case they drop the soap in the shower.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, well...
All these Fundies seem to take it in the shorts sooner or later;

Vandalism at Westboro Baptist Church Friday November 2 2007 9:44

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - Topeka police are investigating vandalism at the Westboro Baptist Church, known for its protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq.

Police said graffiti spray-painted on the church read, "God hates intolerance'' and "God hates the Phelps,'' an apparent reference to the church's belief that God is punishing the United States for its support of homosexuals.

The vandalism was discovered on the day after a Baltimore jury awarded 11 million dollars to the father of a fallen Marine who sued the church over its protest of his son's funeral.

Two homemade firecrackers were found outside the church, and area streets were shut down as a precaution.

Church leader Shirley Phelps-Roper said the damage is the latest of numerous acts of vandalism committed to the church's property over the past 17 years.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Yup.

The American Communist Party wins every time the Democrats win, since there isn't a dime's worth of practical difference between communism and socialism, and socialism is the system promoted by the majority of the Democratic Party.

Coburn's seems to be leaning that way with his idiotic statement which suggests that snuffing out a child's life in utero does not rob him/her of future opportunity...including the opportunity to possibly impact the national debt for the better. Some 25 million people who would now be of taxpaying age have been killed by abortion since 1973, and the systematic killing of those who go to make up the future strength of this country, economically as in every other way, continues unabated, making more room for illegals to further drain us economically, since they consume more than the dead babies, but don't pay taxes, either.

National Socialist candidate Adolf Hitler got elected largely by putting economics ("quality of life") over the sanctity of life, and lost every way around. Never a good idea.

it's still better to be born poor than not at all.

Jill, maybe, maybe not.

Despite the terrible underpinnings of the US economy - I see them as the incredible debt, trade deficit, and a weak currency, primarily - I think that these are still relatively "good times" for Americans as a whole. If one is out of a job, suffering from ballooning mortgage payments, etc., then things may seem bad, but all in all we're still riding the wave of decades of easy-money policies, relatively low interest, the US economy often being the "market of last resort" for the rest of the world, and cheap energy prices.

I think this will change, perhaps slowly and perhaps fairly fast in terms of year-over-year, and in the end the average American will have a lesser standard of living. The economy may be a bigger deal than abortion now, but I think the gap will increase massively going forward in time.

Why would this be a hard topic for (social) liberals?

People tend to vote their pocketbook, and I think this will be even more prevalent in the future. FWIW there is no good way out of our debt. Something like this is never truly repaid. It's either defaulted upon outright, or the currency is debased so much that what the lenders receive are Dollars which are worth much less or are worthless.

Doug

"National Socialist candidate Adolf Hitler got elected largely by putting economics ("quality of life") over the sanctity of life, and lost every way around. Never a good idea."

You're forgetting that Hitler was both pro-life and pro-choice. In fact, he's more right-wing than socialist in the way he promoted abortions and sterilisation for those who were "unfit," whether that meant racially, or simply Germans who were handicapped.

And then abortion for Germans was banned by Hitler so that he could promote his "perfect" Aryan race. If you want to compare liberals to Hitler, you should take a step back and look at how many similarities he has with conservatives.

Mike Huckabee said something about how we wouldn't have to import immigrants to do work in America if we would ban abortion and therefore let our own citizens become wage slaves. It's a sick form of nationalism that maintains that our nation should be allowed to prosper and none others, even if that implies our citizens are given less opportunity. And by banning abortion, we are giving people less opportunities to succeed as the competition grows stronger. In essence, only the top performing professionals will have a shot at a good life.

Regardless, I'm sickened by these Hitler/holocaust comparisons. Abortion is nothing like the holocaust, and those who say it is are vastly uneducated as to what actually occurred then, and today in countries where holocuasts are still happening. Something as powerful as that should never be compared to something like a woman choosing what to do with her own body. It's not like pro-choicers are holding guns to people's heads and making them abort their children. Not to mention how awful and how crude and how INSULTING that is to someone who went through the holocaust or has an ancestor who did.

Edyt, Hitler was not pro-choice. He was pro-forced-abortion for some, and pro-forced-pregnancy for others, but pro-choice for nobody.

Interesting AND on-topic LA Times op-ed piece:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Opinion

Abortion isn't a religious issue

Evangelicals are adamant, but religion really has nothing to say about the issue.

By Garry Wills
November 4, 2007

What makes opposition to abortion the issue it is for each of the GOP presidential candidates is the fact that it is the ultimate "wedge issue" -- it is nonnegotiable. The right-to-life people hold that it is as strong a point of religion as any can be. It is religious because the Sixth Commandment (or the Fifth by Catholic count) says, "Thou shalt not kill." For evangelical Christians, in general, abortion is murder. That is why what others think, what polls say, what looks practical does not matter for them. One must oppose murder, however much rancor or controversy may ensue.

But is abortion murder? Most people think not. Evangelicals may argue that most people in Germany thought it was all right to kill Jews. But the parallel is not valid. Killing Jews was killing persons. It is not demonstrable that killing fetuses is killing persons. Not even evangelicals act as if it were. If so, a woman seeking an abortion would be the most culpable person. She is killing her own child. But the evangelical community does not call for her execution.

About 10% of evangelicals, according to polls, allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. But the circumstances of conception should not change the nature of the thing conceived. If it is a human person, killing it is punishing it for something it had nothing to do with. We do not kill people because they had a criminal parent.

Nor did the Catholic Church treat abortion as murder in the past. If it had, late-term abortions and miscarriages would have called for treatment of the well-formed fetus as a person, which would require baptism and a Christian burial. That was never the practice. And no wonder. The subject of abortion is not scriptural. For those who make it so central to religion, this seems an odd omission. Abortion is not treated in the Ten Commandments -- or anywhere in Jewish Scripture. It is not treated in the Sermon on the Mount -- or anywhere in the New Testament. It is not treated in the early creeds. It is not treated in the early ecumenical councils.

Lacking scriptural guidance, St. Thomas Aquinas worked from Aristotle's view of the different kinds of animation -- the nutritive (vegetable) soul, the sensing (animal) soul and the intellectual soul. Some people used Aristotle to say that humans therefore have three souls. Others said that the intellectual soul is created by human semen.

Aquinas denied both positions. He said that a material cause (semen) cannot cause a spiritual product. The intellectual soul (personhood) is directly created by God "at the end of human generation." This intellectual soul supplants what had preceded it (nutritive and sensory animation). So Aquinas denied that personhood arose at fertilization by the semen. God directly infuses the soul at the completion of human formation.

Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception -- that it is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction. It is not a theological matter at all. There is no theological basis for defending or condemning abortion. Even popes have said that the question of abortion is a matter of natural law, to be decided by natural reason. Well, the pope is not the arbiter of natural law. Natural reason is.

John Henry Newman, a 19th century Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism, once wrote that "the pope, who comes of revelation, has no jurisdiction over nature." The matter must be decided by individual conscience, not by religious fiat. As Newman said: "I shall drink to the pope, if you please -- still, to conscience first, and to the pope afterward."

If we are to decide the matter of abortion by natural law, that means we must turn to reason and science, the realm of Enlightened religion. But that is just what evangelicals want to avoid. Who are the relevant experts here? They are philosophers, neurobiologists, embryologists. Evangelicals want to exclude them because most give answers they do not want to hear. The experts have only secular expertise, not religious conviction. They, admittedly, do not give one answer -- they differ among themselves, they are tentative, they qualify. They do not have the certitude that the religious right accepts as the sign of truth.

So evangelicals take shortcuts. They pin everything on being pro-life. But one cannot be indiscriminately pro-life.

If one claimed, in the manner of Albert Schweitzer, that all life deserved moral respect, then plants have rights, and it might turn out that we would have little if anything to eat. And if one were consistently pro-life, one would have to show moral respect for paramecia, insects, tissue excised during a medical operation, cancer cells, asparagus and so on. Harvesting carrots, on a consistent pro-life hypothesis, would constitute something of a massacre.

Opponents of abortion will say that they are defending only human life. It is certainly true that the fetus is human life. But so is the semen before it fertilizes; so is the ovum before it is fertilized. They are both human products, and both are living things. But not even evangelicals say that the destruction of one or the other would be murder.

Defenders of the fetus say that life begins only after the semen fertilizes the egg, producing an embryo. But, in fact, two-thirds of the embryos produced this way fail to live on because they do not embed in the womb wall. Nature is like fertilization clinics -- it produces more embryos than are actually used. Are all the millions of embryos that fail to be embedded human persons?

The universal mandate to preserve "human life" makes no sense. My hair is human life -- it is not canine hair, and it is living. It grows. When it grows too long, I have it cut. Is that aborting human life? The same with my growing human fingernails. An evangelical might respond that my hair does not have the potential to become a person. True. But semen has the potential to become a person, and we do not preserve every bit of semen that is ejaculated but never fertilizes an egg.

The question is not whether the fetus is human life but whether it is a human person, and when it becomes one. Is it when it is capable of thought, of speech, of recognizing itself as a person, or of assuming the responsibilities of a person? Is it when it has a functioning brain? Aquinas said that the fetus did not become a person until God infused the intellectual soul. A functioning brain is not present in the fetus until the end of the sixth month at the earliest.

Not surprisingly, that is the earliest point of viability, the time when a fetus can successfully survive outside the womb.

Whether through serendipity or through some sort of causal connection, it now seems that the onset of a functioning central nervous system with a functioning cerebral cortex and the onset of viability occur around the same time -- the end of the second trimester, a time by which 99% of all abortions have already occurred.

Opponents of abortion like to show sonograms of the fetus reacting to stimuli. But all living cells have electric and automatic reactions. These are like the reactions of Terri Schiavo when she was in a permanent vegetative state. Aquinas, following Aristotle, called the early stage of fetal development vegetative life. The fetus has a face long before it has a brain. It has animation before it has a command center to be aware of its movements or to experience any reaction as pain.

These are difficult matters, on which qualified people differ. It is not enough to say that whatever the woman wants should go. She has a responsibility to consider whether and when she may have a child inside her, not just a fetus. Certainly by the late stages of her pregnancy, a child is ready to respond with miraculous celerity to all the personal interchanges with the mother that show a brain in great working order.

Given these uncertainties, who is to make the individual decision to have an abortion? Religious leaders? They have no special authority in the matter, which is not subject to theological norms or guidance. The state? Its authority is given by the people it represents, and the people are divided on this. Doctors? They too differ. The woman is the one closest to the decision. Under Roe vs. Wade, no woman is forced to have an abortion. But those who have decided to have one are able to.

Some objected to Karl Rove's use of abortion to cement his ecumenical coalition, on the grounds that this was injecting religion into politics. The supreme irony is that, properly understood, abortion is not even a religious issue. But that did not matter to Rove. All he cared about was that it worked. For a while.

Garry Wills is the author of numerous books, most recently "Head and Heart: American Christianities," from which this article is adapted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way, when I find an appropriate artice, should I post it or send it to the moderators first?
(There are boards that NEVER let you post an opposing stance. They are really boring boards...)

Fred Thompson says "No" to Human Life Amendment
November 4, 2007

Fred Thompson told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he DOES NOT support a Human Life amendment. That position is part of the GOP platform. Here’s what the 2004 GOP platform says:

"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions."
Here’s what Thompson said about it lifted from today’s Meet The Press transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.

MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?

MR. THOMPSON: No.

MR. RUSSERT: You would not?

MR. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But...

MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling—going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.

Oooooooooh!

Fred Thompson/abortion firestorm over on FreeRepublic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1920905/posts

Sorry, SoMG, what I meant to say was "pro-abortion." I got ahead of myself.

"Something as powerful as that should never be compared to something like a woman choosing what to do with her own body."
--Edyt

Dearest Edyt, there is more than just one body involved here. The women in question are not just getting botox treatments. They are killing the innocent human being, that is, the unborn infant within each of them. One can and should, indeed, compare this massive genocide (US alone 40 million since 1973) to the holocaust...this type of mass murder simply happens at a different state in human development. And abortion also breaks the ice for the future enabling of social approval to include killing disabled and then unwanted infants. Peter Singer is not that far from mainstream liberal thought--in fact, he may be in the vanguard.

John, Singer is not mainstream liberal thought. He's nowhere near the "vanguard" either. He's actually pretty fringe, just vocal so it seems like he's more "popular" than he actually is. Kind of like Fred Phelps, he's well known but he surely isn't "mainstream conservative thought".

Rae, that's strange for you to say.

One might be forgiven for thinking that Peter Singer, holding position of the Ira W. DeCamp Professorship of Bioethics at Princeton University, would have achieved a decided respect in certain circles of society, albeit on the left bank, so to speak. It doesn't appear "pretty fringe" as you claim. Quite the opposite.

Sorry for The anonymous post above, Rae, et al. It was just me responding to your post above it. Thank you.

The supreme irony is that, properly understood, abortion is not even a religious issue.

posted by Laura

repeated by hippie

It is a human rights issue.

@John: It's okay. I guess it was more my opinion than anything. That and the fact that I rarely ever see anything about Singer unless I'm taking a course in ethics or philosophy. When I have learned about him in philosophy courses, his position is often met with groans or eye rolls (and this is a fairly liberal campus). There is such thing as too far, and as far as I'm concerned, Singer crosses it and therefore I consider him "fringe".

You can still be "out there" and respected...agreed with? Not necessarily. Because one holds a rather prestigious position doesn't necessarily mean they have "mainstream" ideas, and Singer's ideas are most certainly not mainstream.

"They are killing the innocent human being, that is, the unborn infant within each of them. One can and should, indeed, compare this massive genocide (US alone 40 million since 1973) to the holocaust...this type of mass murder simply happens at a different state in human development."

Are you kidding? Genocide is the systematic destruction of specific group of people, whether race, religion, culture, etc.

Nowhere in the world is there a systematic destruction of the unborn. It is NOT mass murder, and if you're going to call it any kind of murder, homicide is more accurate. And homicide does not compare with genocide in any way.

Like I said earlier, no one is forcing these women to have abortions. They alone are given the choice to do so. Not only that, but they are women of all different kinds of beliefs, races, and cultures. There is no uprise to suddenly destroy all the unborn kids on the planet simply because they're the unborn. The only country even CLOSE to this is China, where there is a strict one-child policy, which was to solve over-population problems such as mass-starvation. A similar case could occur in America if abortion was banned and those 40 million children you cited were to exist today.

Anyway, I hardly think abortion is comparable to the systematic destruction of one sort of person. Your argument is flawed and baseless due to a simple misunderstanding of a word. That kind of ignorance is what is insulting to people who actually have been victims of genocide. Not only that, but I shudder to think of the people who may fall prey to your flawed arguments and actually believe what you're saying.

I hope in the future, debate classes are made mandatory to fix these obvious problems in our educational system.

Edyt, you wrote: "... and if you're going to call [abortion] any kind of murder, homicide is more accurate."

I would call it JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

... I'm not really calling it homicide, I'm just saying that if he were to use that argument, homicide is more accurate than genocide.

Edyt,

Nowhere in the world is there a systematic destruction of the unborn. It is NOT mass murder, and if you're going to call it any kind of murder, homicide is more accurate. And homicide does not compare with genocide in any way.

Sure there is. India, China...killing female babies "systematically", here in the US killing babies with Down Syndrome (and other fetal anomalies), systematically.

And we are not killing millions of born people, but millions of unborn people. I'd say that qualifies as "mass murder"...focusing on one group, simply because they belong to that group, and are helpless to defend themselves.

MK, we are not aborting Downs Syndrome pregnancies SYSTEMATICALLY. Each abortion is done at the request of the pregnant woman. That's not systematic.

"Each abortion is done at the request of the pregnant woman."

Do tell. A "request" that is largely coerced by ignorant and prejudiced medical staff members including or especially doctors, friends and families, and a society that too often looks upon Downs Syndrome children or the generally disabled with a jaundiced view. Exactly then how might most women respond to such frightful pressure?

A "request" that is largely coerced

John, most of the time that's not true. Most of the time the woman just doesn't want to be pregnant.

I have no problem with people wanting to continue a pregnancy if it's positive for Down's Syndrome but I also can understand why some people would want to have an abortion due to it.

No one forces women to get abortions, not in the USA.

Here's a question for RTLs: If getting an abortion should require parental consent for minors, then why shouldn't the parents also be able to force their dependent kids to have abortions if that is the parents' preference? In other words, do we give the parents control over their kids' reproductive lives or not?

"I have no problem with people wanting to continue a pregnancy if it's positive for Down's Syndrome...."

Such humility on your part is truly breathtaking, but your opinions run counter to facts.

Coercion is done in many forms and an OB/GYN's carries a lot of weight. And now women are most often advised to abort the preborn infant if Downs is indicated. The stats are simply there as are the initial studies. And Downs children are vanishing from our society...thanks to the enlightened liberal mentality of velvet genocide.

John Hetman, right! Nice posts.

"I have no problem with people wanting to continue a pregnancy if it's positive for Down's Syndrome...."

John H: Such humility on your part is truly breathtaking, but your opinions run counter to facts.

There are no "facts" - people simply have different opinions. Even a given person may feel quite differently, depending on the situation.
....

Coercion is done in many forms and an OB/GYN's carries a lot of weight. And now women are most often advised to abort the preborn infant if Downs is indicated. The stats are simply there as are the initial studies. And Downs children are vanishing from our society...thanks to the enlightened liberal mentality of velvet genocide.

I don't believe you where you say that women are most often advised to have abortions, there. Most people may want to end Down's pregnancies, but that doesn't necessarily come from any doctors. In any case, being Pro-Choice is not wanting the doctors to tell them to do anything. Pro-Choice is for leaving it up to the woman or couple.

Doug

Ah yes, Edyt. I have my issues with Bush, too, and don’t think he’s done as much as he could or should to promote a sanctity of life culture; that is why I voted for him in 2000 but for Michael Peroutka in 2004. No left-winger would have done any more, but a great deal less; so it must be galling, after 8 years of pointing the “Hitler” finger at Bush, to find three more pointing back at you.

Actually, I haven’t forgotten anything essential about Hitler’s views and their role in either the Nazi Holocaust or the American abortion holocaust; and if I had, I would hardly rely on you to refresh my memory. What Hitler was in promoting abortion and forced sterilization for those he deemed “unfit” was not pro-life, since it meant the deliberate destruction of so many human lives, nor legitimately “pro-choice”, since none of the victims were given much choice; he was pro-death, and he was a spokesman and puppet of the eugenicists, as are most, if not all abortionists.

Several proposals to repeal Germany’s laws prohibiting abortion were introduced prior to the Third Reich, but none of them got the momentum they needed to be passed without the help of the Nazi legal machinery. The Third Reich ran abortion chambers within their “relocation camps” which did nothing “evacuate” one pregnant Jewish womb after another; none of the babies survived. Josef Mengele (you remember Dr. Mengele, don’t you? The infamous “medical director” at Auschwitz-Birkenau responsible for horrific experiments on prisoners, and for the deaths of millions he just directed straight to the gas chambers?) fled Europe after WWII to escape the Nuremberg Trials, and went to South America. As a fugitive, he supported himself by performing abortions. Seems you can get the doctor out of the death camp, but getting the death camp out of the doctor is something else again.

Hitler was also a committed socialist, as are liberals; most conservatives are not, and very few, if any, social conservatives promote abortions or forced sterilization for anyone.

Obviously, if you kill an unborn child, you destroy any opportunities that child could ever have to compete or succeed. If you had been killed while you were still a fetus, it isn’t a fetus who would not be here now; it is the person you are now. That is true for every baby who actually is killed by abortion.

If you think you are sickened by the mere suggestion or exposure of the links & similarities between the atrocities of exterminative “medicine” in Nazi Germany and contemporary America, though, you cannot begin to imagine how abominable their actuality is to those who are subjected to them, namely, the babies, and their survivors. The Nazis actually invented the salt poisoning method of abortion, which was one of the most common methods used to kill mid-late term babies into the mid 80s in America. You remember salt poisoning, don’t you? In a salt poisoning abortion, the killer removes some of the baby’s amniotic fluid with a needle, and replaces it with a hypersaline solution. This poison burns the baby’s skin so severely that often the outer layer is completely burned off, revealing the raw, red subcutaneous layer, giving rise to the name “candied apple babies”. The effects are similar to napalm on its victims. The baby is also forced to ingest this poison, which burns his/her internal organs. A child killed in this indescribably brutal manner thrashes about in pain for hours; then the mother is given a hormone to induce labor; and within about 24 hours, she delivers a baby that is either dead or dying in agony.

Japanese law allowed induced child-killing on demand some ten years prior to Roe/Doe and after those infamous decisions declared open season on all preborn children, the Japanese medical community tried to warn the American doctors to at least enact a ban on this procedure because so many women had died from it in Japan. It was already presenting hired baby-killers with two rather embarrassing complications: dead mothers, and surviving infants. However, no moratorium on it was ever passed, due to opposition from proabortion groups. It is still in use now, and it is still legal, though it has been, for the most part, replaced with methods less likely to produce a live baby, and perhaps marginally less likely to produce a dead mother.

Speaking of dead mothers, it doesn’t seem that your own observations are so remarkable for their lack of crudeness or adding insult to the injury of bereavement for those survivors of women killed by legal abortion as to be commended over mine. You remember, don’t you, how so many of the Nazi victims were lured into the gas chambers by the promise of “a nice, refreshing, de-lousing shower”? Only the “shower” was poison gas, and the “lice” to be destroyed were themselves. In a similar manner, women are lured into killing chambers masquerading as “healthcare clinics”, even though the main “procedure” is a savage act of violent murder which does not treat, cure, or prevent any actual disease or malady. (Pregnancy is not a disease; it is a normal function of healthy reproductive system, and ABORTION IS TO HEALTHCARE WHAT 9-11 WAS TO AVIATION; the cruel misuse of certain skills and instruments for the deliberate destruction of a targeted group of victims.)
Then, of course, there are the millions of women who have survived, to face a lifetime of grief for the children they lost, being told that they were “mere clumps of cells/blobs of tissue” (not too different from a “louse”, if you think about it) in those death chambers. See? They’re not so very different after all, now, are they?

Here are some more striking parallels:

In 1936 the Supreme Court of Germany “refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
* * * * *
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

THE SANCTITY –OF-LIFE ETHIC EMBODIED IN THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH WAS DROPPED FROM USE IN MEDICAL SCHOOLS ONLY TWICE IN MODERN HISTORY; TODAY AND DURING THE TWELVE YEARS OF THE THIRD REICH.

At the Hadamar euthanasia hospital patients killed with injections were told that they were for “treatment of their lung disease.”

* * * * *

In 1976 Dr. Willard Cates called abortion the “preferred treatment” for “unwanted pregnancy: the number two sexually transmitted disease.”
“What should we do with this garbage.”
-- Christian Wirth on the problem of body disposal at Treblinka, 1942

* * * * *
“An aborted baby is just garbage.”
-- Fetal researcher Dr. Martti Kekomaki, 1980
Heads severed from inmates exterminated in the gas chambers were utilized as “paperweights” in the offices of camp commandants.

* * * * *
The brains, organs and bodies of aborted babies encased in a “paperweight” type of plastic block were sold by a Chicago biological supply firm.

SOME FOUR HUNDRED LAWS AND DECREES WERE ENACTED AGAINST THE JEWS LEADING UP TO THE “FINAL SOLUTION.”

At the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial in 1947 Walter E. Schmidt defended the Nazi holocaust with the statement: “The jurists in Berlin told us this was a legal matter…quite legal.”

* * * * *
In 1980 abortionist Dr. Michael Jackson furnished an identical rationalization in support of today’s abortion holocaust: “I just go by what the courts say…I only do what’s legal.”
CONTEMPORARY ABORTION PROPONENTS DISPUTE THE HUMANITY OF THE UNBORN AS VOCIFEROUSLY AS THE NAZIS QUESTIONED THE HUMANITY OF THE JEWS.
In the Nazi death camps annihilation as an assembly-line enterprise came of age: “A man would step off a train in the morning, and the evening his corpse was burned and his clothes packed away for shipment to Germany.”
* * * * *
A woman can enter an abortion chamber on her lunch hour and, by the time she is due to return to work, all the remains of her unborn baby’s body are obliterated by an assembly-line process that would make even the most avid Nazi technician gasp in awe.”
The I.G. Farben Chemical Corporation’s dividends on its investments in Degesch, manufacturer of Zyklon B gas doubled from 1942-1944, a period when millions were being gassed to death in concentrations camps.

* * * * *
The Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company’s announcement of plans for the development of a vaginal suppository for abortion was accompanied by a spectacular rise in its common stock from a low of $32 a share to a high of $56.

THE UNWANTED OF THE PAST AND THE PRESENT HAVE HAD MUCH MORE TO FEAR FROM EDUCATED ELITES THEN FROM EITHER MOBS IN THE STREETS OR BACK-ALLEY BUTCHERS.

Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hoess bragged that he “knew of not a single case where anyone came out of the chambers alive.”
* * * * *
A physician abortionist boasted that the dismemberment of the unborn in D&E abortion “never ever results in live births.”

“NO NEWBORN INFANT SHOULD BE DECLARED HUMAN UNTIL IT HAS PASSED CERTAIN TESTS REGARDING ITS GENETIC ENDOWMENT…IF IT FAILS THESE TESTS IT FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO LIVE.”
-- Nobel Laureate Dr. Francis H. Crick, 1978

In 1925 in Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler referred to Jews as “a parasite in the body of other peoples.”

* * * * *
In 1973 a radical feminist group characterized the unborn as “a parasite within the mother’s body.”

The process by which victims were sent to die in the gas chambers was called “Selection”
* * * * *
The process by which victims are sent to die in abortion mills is called “Choice”
These are just a few excerpted from William Brennan’s excellent study, “The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution”. There are many more; it seems that it is the deniers of these comparisons who lack elucidation on the realities of both these bloodbaths. Those who really care about making “NEVER AGAIN” as much of a reality as possible will also gain much more well-researched, well-documented and valuable insight at www.eugenics-watch.com.

Oh, and I just can’t believe you still buy that old line about “a woman right to choose what to do with her body”. Tell it to the hundreds of parents who’ve had to bury the bodies of women for whom “safe & legal” induced abortion proved to be the “choice” that ended all others. Tell it to the women who survived their abortions but found them to be a far cry from the “safe, simple” procedures they were misled by the abortion profiteers to expect. Even the predatory pro-abort MEN who invented that line will laugh just as hard at your credulity now as they did when they coined those phrases…well, the one who is still alive. Hear him:

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

To find out more about just how cynical, consider the following:

1.) Of all the Americans registered to vote in 1973, exactly NINE of them got a chance to vote on legalizing abortion, and ALL of them were MEN!
2.) Few women try to get pregnant because they want abortions.
3.) Most “abortion decisions” contain too many elements of fear, ignorance, manipulation, deception, coercion, and desperation to be taken seriously as “free choices” by rational people. Pro-life feminist Frederica Matthewes-Green put it this way: “A woman doesn’t want an abortion the way she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. A woman “chooses” an abortion the way an animal caught in trap “chooses” to gnaw off its leg.” Even world-class spin-sters Planned Parenthood (the real anti-choice, anti-life extremists) could not gainsay her on this, and it wound up highlighted as quote of the month on one of their newletters.
4.) Induced abortion is the premeditated, deliberate taking of at least one innocent human life, e.g., murder, and murder is always the ultimate imposition of one person’s will on someone else to their hurt, and it deprives them of all choices.
5.) Legalizing abortion was never about “a woman’s right to choose”; that was the veneer to make the abominable acceptable and appealing. It was always about a doctor’s right to kill the vulnerable.
Many laws – against rape, murder, slander, prostitution, extortion, perjury, obstruction of justice, assault and battery, harassment, stalking, etc., etc.,- rightly limit what people can do with their own bodies. Making exceptions for mothers to kill their own children unjustly kills children, recklessly endangers mothers, and has no beneficial effect upon an optimally free, just, civilized society.

But I suppose you would have supported the “rights” of the Waffen SS to do as they pleased with their own bodies, much like Hitler.

It is said that those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat its mistakes. So out of consideration for ALL victims of EVERY holocaust, past and present, stop trying to interfere with those of us who are trying to sound a legitimate warning cry…NIZKOR, NEVER AGAIN, and L’CHAIM!

WACHET AUF!

W.A., you failed at creating a logical argument.

Welcome to the twenty-first century, where we do not use saline solutions or tortuous methods to induce abortion. Spinning the idea that the unborn feel pain at the time most abortions occur is utterly untrue and the idea many biased pro-life groups state. Unfortunately, there isn't a recognized medical society that believes that.

Again, no one is FORCING anyone to have an abortion. If a woman FEELS she is being pressured, she has the RIGHT to go to another clinic.

Again, abortion is NOT a decision anyone WANTS to make but the fact is that people do make that decision. OBVIOUSLY not everyone wants to have children, or not everyone wants to have children at that point in their life. My mother had an abortion when she was 21, and ten years later produced five children. Perhaps if pro-lifers wanted to make a difference in abortion rates, they should consider promoting contraceptives.

Obviously, abstinence isn't doing the job. People have been having sex since... oh, I don't know, since we evolved from single gendered organisms? What makes you think they'll stop now?

I know what the Jews endured was horrible. If you notice, I fixed my statement because I didn't mean pro-choice, I meant pro-abortion. There is a difference. There are no Hitlers in America working to force all the women to have abortions.

Doctors are not targeting the vulnerable. Many people who are born with Down's Syndrome or other dehabilitating illnesses require a lot of medical attention and care, which is costly. Doctors understand that the average couple may not want to spend the rest of their lives babysitting someone who may not mature past the age of two and constantly throwing money toward the medical expenses to make sure that person is taken care of. That does not mean they are out to kill these people, they just have a better understanding of humans than you apparently do.

Personally, I don't want to ever choose to have an abortion. But I don't think that choice should be taken away, because then you criminalize doctors and women. I respect women who want to raise a family. Personally, I'm comfortable with my two very autonomous cats and a career. That's my choice. You should never punish someone with a pregnancy they don't want, or else you risk that person punishing another undeserving person - their child.

It's easy to say abortion should be illegal. I understand it, I really do. It's very undesirable. But more women died as a result of illegal abortions than ever have with legal ones. Is that the world you want to live in again?

Dismemberment isn't torturous?! And saline is still occasionally used mainly for "pregnancy reduction" killings. Real world to Edyt, COME IN PLEASE!!!

Spinning the idea that the unborn feel nothing at the time of most abortions is very convenient for medical societies that have abandoned the commitment to the protection of the innocent encoded in the Hippocratic Oath. Just because their consciences have been seared does not mean that the babies' sensitivities have. I will take the counter evidence of the "Silent Scream" over the word of a bunch of hired killers any day. You have only denied, not disproven, that documentary. And even if they didn't feel pain, due to development or anesthesia, it's no excuse to take an innocent human life. Condemning a child to death before birth is certainly cruel and unjust punishment, and many more women have found it to be the choice that seriously limited other choices for them, if it did not end them altogether.

Realchoice.0catch.com will give you a more realistic perspective on the safety of legal/illegal abortion than you stated in your post, but with two significant differences; documentation, and a verdict in favor of the children.

People have been having sex since Adam and Eve first hooked up in the Garden of Eden. So? Chastity has always done a number of legitimately protective jobs when it isn't abandoned for a counterfeit substitute proven to be much less effective; that's why God recommends it so highly.

Doctors still have a choice not to kill the vulnerable; and unless these killings are accidental (which we both know they aren't), then, yes, the victims, ipso facto, are targeted.

Abortions are forced on the babies they kill, and most of them cannot strictly be called real choices for a number of reasons. Perhaps Planned Parenthood has yet to expedite forced abortion here to the extent that they have in, say, China, but rest assured that if they have their way, the draconian measures punishing women just for being women and conceiving a child after they have already had one will be implemented here. There is already considerable evidence that the majority of abortion "decisions" made in America are imposed, by coercion, deceptive marketing, pressures by irresponsible fathers or embarrassed, frightened grandparents of the baby in question, greedy abortion profiteers/social engineers masquerading as healers, etc., that they are not so much real choices by the women who submit to them as very cruel, cynical mockeries of real choice.

There is much less logic in your efforts to co-opt "NEVER AGAIN" to serve the perpetuation of the eugenic abortion holocaust than in my connecting it with the aim of ending it ASAP as saving as many real victims of it in the meantime as possible. Just because you have evidently failed to comprehend the evidence I have set before you does not diminish the logic of it, it only dimishes yours.

But since you did not even try to refute any of the other parallels, there may be hope for you, and the world bloodied by legalized abortion, yet.

NIZKOR, NEVER AGAIN, and L’CHAIM!

And... you're crazy.

Try citing unbiased websites to prove your point. Silent Scream was disproven in accuracy.

Oops, where did your point go? I lost it. It must have lost credibility and turned to dust.

Silly little argument.

I'm voting for the only candidate who will end abortion and bring trust and integrity back to government: Ron Paul.

All these republicans keep dangling this issue like a carrot above us pro-lifers head. It's time we realize that the only way to get rid of Roe v Wade in a quick manner is to remove the issue from federal courts. All this talk of "appointing judges" is nonsense. This is about the slowest way we can get rid of this disgusting law. We need to tell congress to pass Ron Paul's sanctity of life act and elect this great man as president.