Horrifying...Something that the libs will scoff at and say "That will never happen...you are sensationalizing all of this!!" Yet many small steps toward this over the years and we may well find ourselves in this situation. Rest assured, God hates abortion...but this may just be the straw that broke the camel's back.

What is that supposed to be? I mean I see the fetus, but what about the black stringy-looking stuff? And the pinkish tubes?

Feeders, oxygenators, hydrators... all that moms currently provide preborns (which is all they need, btw - from the moment of conception these unique human beings otherwise grow on their own)

I think its supposed to be like a cloning lab of sorts.

Reminds me of the cloning labs in "ATTACK OF THE CLONES"

This ESCR thing reminds me of something a great man once said.......

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

Something that the libs will scoff at and say "That will never happen...you are sensationalizing all of this!!" Yet many small steps toward this over the years and we may well find ourselves in this situation. Rest assured, God hates abortion...but this may just be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Posted by: Becca at March 10, 2009 10:36 AM

-Goes both ways, Becca. The minute the left begins to probe the right and speculate on what a country that overturns abortion laws looks like - including the inevitable prosecution of those involved in it (clinics, hospitals, doctors, patients and patients' families/partners), the right screams that we're sensationalizing and being overly dramatic.

So, now we both have something to panic and hand-wring over.

Reminds me of the cloning labs in "ATTACK OF THE CLONES"

I was just thinking that too! Star Wars fan here! Only the artificial wombs in this image remind me more of the pods from the Alien movies versus the high-tech Kamino cloning chambers from Attack of the Clones.

Danielle, the difference is that prosecution for violating abortion laws should happen. But doctors don't get prosecuted for violating existing laws.
And states like Massachusetts and California will never outlaw abortion.
Roe was a case of the supreme court being wrong, as a legal and constitutional matter just as the court was wrong in the Kelo case where the supreme did away with the right to own property.
Court decisions follow Roe extended a fictitious "right" far beyond Roe to the point where the court declared parents don't have the right to make medical decisions for their children.
The worst case that supports of life see coming is unfortunately far more likely.
Under BO's national health care bureaucracy it is more likely that mandatory baby screening and forced abortions will come to "avoid unecessary and costly medical procedures" by allowing defective babies to be born. My nephew would be consider such a defective baby. He is one of the 10% of downs syndrome not aborted after screening. And yes he is expensive. Several surgeries in his first months. Yes he costs tax payers an extra $50K a year to be in a public school. But who are we to decide how much any human life is worth? Do you want to make those decisions for others as some "enlightened" European countries do? At least one allows doctors to kill babies deemed to defective to ever be a contributing (tax paying) member of society without parental consent.
We see the worst case coming here because it already exists elsewhere. Regions the left think we should be copying.
And don't forget. The abortion on demand crowd wants to close hospitals and put doctors in jail who refuse to perform abortions for "civil rights crimes."

@Mark: I'm not going to become hysterical with you.

The difference is that prosecution for violating abortion laws should happen...Roe was a case of the supreme court being wrong
-A matter of option, obvs.

Under BO's national health care bureaucracy it is more likely that mandatory baby screening and forced abortions will come to "avoid unecessary and costly medical procedures" by allowing defective babies to be born.
-More hysteria. The crux of the pro-choice position is that no one is FORCED to reproduce OR abort. The president is pro-choice.

Do you want to make those decisions for others as some "enlightened" European countries do? At least one allows doctors to kill babies deemed to defective to ever be a contributing (tax paying) member of society without parental consent.
-Please name the country in the European Union that has legalized, supported and/or legislated infanticide, which is what you just described.

The abortion on demand crowd wants to close hospitals and put doctors in jail who refuse to perform abortions for "civil rights crimes."
-Pre-existing federal law protects doctors and nurses who decline to provide abortion services because of their beliefs. Recinding the conscience rule would have no effect on that law.

-the above should say "matter of opinion" sorry

Danielle: " The minute the left begins to probe the right and speculate on what a country that overturns abortion laws looks like - including the inevitable prosecution of those involved in it (clinics, hospitals, doctors, patients and patients' families/partners), the right screams that we're sensationalizing and being overly dramatic."

what are you talking about? They should be prosecuted. I dont see how thats any debate. If its illegal, they need to be punished. Simple enough.

I think its the Netherlands that allows the killing of disabled children.

And there are women who are STILL coerced into abortions, whether you believe it or not. They are pressured by threats (parents saying abort or you'll be kicked out) (boyfriend or husband threatening abuse).

If Pro Choice was TRULY pro "Choice" ALL CHOICES would be presented to a woman. And I mean ALL CHOICES.

Funny you should say the prez is pro choice, cause if he overrides the protection put in place for doctors and nurses to use their conscience to object to taking part in a procedure like abortion or sterilization, he would be taking away THEIR CHOICE to say "NO".

what are you talking about? They should be prosecuted. I dont see how thats any debate. If its illegal, they need to be punished. Simple enough.
Posted by: Oliver at March 10, 2009 12:52 PM

-At least you're honest. I've been accused of fear mongering by asking on this board for a very clear description of what a country w/illegal abortion looks like and who gets prosecuted. There was discussion that only doctors would get penalized and there was no appetite for prosecuting women, which I thought was ridiculous. This is obviously a point of debate in PL circles.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2009 12:54 PM

I think its the Netherlands that allows the killing of disabled children.
-The country has legalized euthanasia. Is this what you're insinuating by 'allowing the killing of disabled children'? Otherwise, prove it. There is virtually no other information I can find to substantiate such a claim. Note that their abortion laws are similar, if not more stringent than the US (ex, a five-day waiting period is required, the procedure must be performed in a licensed hospital or clinic) and its only been legal since the late 70s/early 80s.

And there are women who are STILL coerced into abortions, whether you believe it or not. They are pressured by threats (parents saying abort or you'll be kicked out) (boyfriend or husband threatening abuse).
-Of course there are. This has never been under question. Those examples, however, are not 'The Matrix' example that Jill's insinuating.

If Pro Choice was TRULY pro "Choice" ALL CHOICES would be presented to a woman. And I mean ALL CHOICES.
-Precisely. Once a woman is pregnant, she is aware that the pregnancy can end in a myriad of ways, including giving birth. Some, however, choose not to give birth. A choice.

Funny you should say the prez is pro choice, cause if he overrides the protection put in place for doctors and nurses to use their conscience to object to taking part in a procedure like abortion or sterilization, he would be taking away THEIR CHOICE to say "NO".
-Again, untrue. Please read the previous post for comment.

Danielle,

When a woman is pregnant and goes to an abortion clinic is she shown an ultrasound, given the medical facts on fetal development and shown what her growing baby looks like? Is the abortion procedure described to her? That it hurts more than "cramps"? Is she told she will be ending the life of a unique human being? Is she encouraged to take some time and think about it?

Is she told about adoption? Is she referred to adoption agencies? Is she encouraged to take some time and think about it?

Is she told that she will receive support and help if she desires to carry her child to term and raise that child? Is she encouraged to take some time and think about it?

I already know the answers to these questions, Danielle. Sorry to say that choice is not choice when women are only given one choice. ABORTION.

Reminds me of the Matrix.

Danielle: "This is obviously a point of debate in PL circles."

Ive seen Pro-choicers support infanticide many times. Does that mean the issue is a point of discussion for the pro-choice stance? Hopefully not.

Ive seen Pro-choicers support infanticide many times. Does that mean the issue is a point of discussion for the pro-choice stance? Hopefully not.
Posted by: Oliver at March 10, 2009 2:05 PM

-I would hope so, Oliver. I struggle to believe that you've had conversations like this, but I have no choice but to take your word for it.

When a woman is pregnant and goes to an abortion clinic is she shown an ultrasound, given the medical facts on fetal development and shown what her growing baby looks like? Is the abortion procedure described to her? That it hurts more than "cramps"? Is she told she will be ending the life of a unique human being? Is she encouraged to take some time and think about it? Is she told about adoption? Is she referred to adoption agencies? Is she encouraged to take some time and think about it? Is she told that she will receive support and help if she desires to carry her child to term and raise that child? Is she encouraged to take some time and think about it?

I already know the answers to these questions...
Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 1:45 PM

-Then why bother asking me, Carla?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/

Netherlands grapples with euthanasia of babies

Danielle: "-I would hope so, Oliver. I struggle to believe that you've had conversations like this, but I have no choice but to take your word for it. "

Right. Struggle to believe it all you want. One of the more famous pro-choice philosophers ammended one of her works to explain that she supported infanticide if adoption was not an option. Its a relatively common stance on the pro-choice side as it is the logical extension of abortion rights. Now I wouldnt argue it is a major consideration, but again I wouldnt argue that "not punishing the woman" is a major consideration on the pro-life side.

Heck Danielle, Kelly was just posting on here that human indigents have no right to life except that they produce economically. Her point was that children and the elderly are alive only on the whim of society, and that their lives could be revoked at any point if they become a burden.

Liz,

Thats scary, but good to know how wrong Danielle is on the point.

Thats scary, but good to know how wrong Danielle is on the point.
Posted by: Oliver at March 10, 2009 2:41 PM

-Actually, no. Not wrong...I asked Liz upfront if she was referring to their euthanasia laws vs. abortion laws for clarification and she responded with a link. We can get into a euthansia discussion if she wants, but the original topic was the future outlook with/without legalized abortion.

Heck Danielle, Kelly was just posting on here that human indigents have no right to life except that they produce economically. Posted by: Oliver at March 10, 2009 2:39 PM

-I have no idea who Kelly is and what the background/context of that comment involved. Don't ascribe her beliefs to mine because we are both self defined as pro-choice.

One of the more famous pro-choice philosophers ammended one of her works to explain that she supported infanticide if adoption was not an option. Its a relatively common stance on the pro-choice side as it is the logical extension of abortion rights. Now I wouldnt argue it is a major consideration, but again I wouldnt argue that "not punishing the woman" is a major consideration on the pro-life side.
Posted by: Oliver at March 10, 2009 2:32 PM

-In one sentence you claim that support of infanticide is commonplace in PC circles, which is untrue, and the next sentence you say you wouldn't argue that it's a major consideration of the PC side. I don't usually bother obsessing with semantics, but that left me a little confused.

"One of the more famous pro-choice philosophers ammended one of her works to explain that she supported infanticide if adoption was not an option."

Mary Ann Warren, right?

Danielle: "I have no idea who Kelly is and what the background/context of that comment involved. Don't ascribe her beliefs to mine because we are both self defined as pro-choice."

What are you talking about? Read the posts before jumping to wild conclusions. When did I EVER try to say Kelly's point of view was your point of view? My point was that Kelly is a pro-choicer who supports that indigents are at the mercy of society and have no intrinsic rights, meaning that infanticide would be justifiable if there was a burden. I NEVER tried to ascribe the point of view to you. Please dont post hysterical accusations. It just muddies the water.

I said: "Its a relatively common stance on the pro-choice side as it is the logical extension of abortion rights. Now I wouldnt argue it is a major consideration"

Danielle: "-In one sentence you claim that support of infanticide is commonplace in PC circles, which is untrue, and the next sentence you say you wouldn't argue that it's a major consideration of the PC side. I don't usually bother obsessing with semantics, but that left me a little confused."

I guess you missed the word "relatively." Never did I say it was commonplace. Its easy to get confused when you dont actually read the full post and consider the language used. I said it was relatively common to imply that it is not unheard of, but I made sure specifically to explain that I did not consider it "common" in general. I mean its right there in text. Is it that hard?

Danielle: "Actually, no. Not wrong...I asked Liz upfront if she was referring to their euthanasia laws vs. abortion laws for clarification and she responded with a link. We can get into a euthansia discussion if she wants, but the original topic was the future outlook with/without legalized abortion."

She responded with a link? What does that even mean? What if she responded with a direct quote from a research study? "I asked her about X, but she just quoted some text." Are you trying to belittle the source because it is a "link" to a newsite?

Liz said originally : "Do you want to make those decisions for others as some "enlightened" European countries do? At least one allows doctors to kill babies deemed to defective to ever be a contributing (tax paying) member of society without parental consent."

Then Daniellesaid : "Please name the country in the European Union that has legalized, supported and/or legislated infanticide, which is what you just described."

Liz then posted a link to a news article from MSNBC that discussed how in the Netherlands, children deemed to be defective are killed. You are the one who titled it infanticide. Again, as simple as it is, I have to point out that its right there in the text.

bobby: "Mary Ann Warren..."

Im not sure actually. Its been 5 years since I last read the article. I remember that the author was arguing abortion from the feminist point of view. I remember thinking "what would feminists care about this issue specifically?" I couldnt even conceive how women could purposely argue abortion as a "woman's" right.

Danielle,
You know the answers as well as I do. :)

Why is choice only one choice?

Oliver, I was lucky to find the MSNBC one, because I knew a Vatican Link about the practice or WeeklyStandard.com link would be considered "biased".

I never said the part about enlightened European countries, though. :p

My bad Liz. Ill be honest I didnt bother to see who she was quoting. The point still stands though.

Oliver, I can see that this will be a brief discussion thread between the two of us. I now recall that you leap to a rather unpleasant tone with other PC posters on different threads, and I'm not interested in having the same type of exhaustive exchange with you. Therefore, let's nip this in the bud and clear up any issues now so we can move on to other conversations with other people:

"I have no idea who Kelly is and what the background/context of that comment involved. Don't ascribe her beliefs to mine because we are both self defined as pro-choice." What are you talking about?...

-I brought her up because you did. Again, I have no background on what that thread was, but you needed to bring it up as an example correlation between infanticide support and what a PC poster supports. That's quite an assertion. I can't speak for her, but I for sure go on record, insinuated or not, that those are not my beliefs. I needed you to know that. If you were unclear, now you know.

I guess you missed the word "relatively." Never did I say it was commonplace. Its easy to get confused when you dont actually read the full post and consider the language used.

-My bad, Oliver, point to you. I mistakenly assumed that when you used the phrase 'relatively common stance', it was pretty darn close to the definition of 'commonplace'. Odd for one who's native to English, I know. I'll work on that.

She responded with a link? What does that even mean? What if she responded with a direct quote from a research study? "I asked her about X, but she just quoted some text." Are you trying to belittle the source because it is a "link" to a newsite?

-That means, when I directly responded to Liz's comment, she directly responded with a hyperlink from an article from the World Wide Web. I clicked on it with my mouse and a new page showed up with which to read from. There was no attempt to belittle, rather to make sure that she and I were on the same page before moving forward.

Liz said: At least one allows doctors to kill babies deemed to defective to ever be a contributing (tax paying) member of society without parental consent."

-Actually no, that was Mark.

Then Danielle said : "Please name the country in the European Union that has legalized, supported and/or legislated infanticide, which is what you just described."

-I did, indeed.

Liz then posted a link to a news article from MSNBC that discussed how in the Netherlands, children deemed to be defective are killed. You are the one who titled it infanticide. Again, as simple as it is, I have to point out that its right there in the text.

-Yes, Liz did. Thank you for clarifying that for me again. She linked to an article that discusses the debate in the Netherlands on children and euthanasia. I believe this is what you are referring to as, 'children deemed to be defective are killed' (which, is a form of infanticide, correct)? Unfortunately, I have yet to discuss this directly with Liz, as you and I have been distracted by this mild dust up.

But...if I was responding to Liz, I would thank her for a)clarifying her point and b)confirm that she (and by default, Mark) is introducing the country's euthanasia laws as the potential evidence that we are closer to Jill's 2029 prediction. Yes? Yes.

And to that, my response is, I don't concur that a pass on euthanasia in the US, for instance, is correlating to this parallel universe Jill describes. Euthanasia is controversial, no doubt, and I have some conflicting views on it. If she, or Mark, decide to talk more on our viewpoints on euthanasia, I'm willing to do that. Thanks.

Why is choice only one choice?
Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 3:17 PM

-Its not.

What other choices are offered to women at the PP where you volunteer, Danielle?

What other choices are offered to women at the PP where you volunteer, Danielle?
Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 4:22 PM

-By the time you've hit a PP door, you've made your choice. The choice is abortion.
Of course, you're always free to change your mind (more choice).

(BTW, some of the topics you asked about - ultrasound, description of procedure, wait time - are in fact addressed there.)

You asked above why PP and other clinics do not offer such alternatives. Their role is, along with birth control, sex ed, STD screening, GYN care, to provide abortions. Not adoptions. It's not their role to change the patients mind or make a moral judgement what's she's decided to do. It's to ensure that this is what they want and that they have safe medical access to it.

Now of course, the time spent with the counselor could totally change this. Their role is much different than mine. If you're not sure, if you're not here on your own accord, if this is NOT your choice...you should leave. Don't have an abortion. Think about other options. This is exactly what the counselor must assess. I can't speak to the resources that are provided to women should they in fact change their mind. But no one - no one - is forced into an abortion by any staff member at that clinic.

Then Planned Parenthood is PRO ABORTION.

Abortion isn't safe for the woman OR the baby. And again, many of these women do NOT want the abortion. They are coerced or they are led to believe its the only solution.

Liz--that article is talking about euthanizing terminally ill babies. Not just any old baby they feel like. Some people would view it as ending their misery sooner.

Yes Leah, kill the baby before it dies.

What of the women that aren't sure when they hit the PP door? What about the ones that don't want an abortion? The ones that are called "abortion vulnerable?"
Can I ask what your role is?

How does abortion help women?

Then Planned Parenthood is PRO ABORTION. Abortion isn't safe for the woman OR the baby. And again, many of these women do NOT want the abortion. They are coerced or they are led to believe its the only solution.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2009 5:05 PM

-Planned Parenthood is pro YOUR DECISION to have an abortion. They are pro YOUR DECISION not to have an abortion. If you want to see this as pro-abortion, fine. I know this argument falls on deaf ears (eyes?).

Again, if a patient has been coerced into seeking out an abortion, it is certainly the staff's role to identify this and have a very candid and direct conversation with her on what choice means and help find solutions to the relationship issues that led her down a path that was NOT of her own choosing.

If you're looking for some sort of discussion, you'll have to give me a bit more than that, Carla.

Posted by: Leah at March 10, 2009 5:11 PM

"Liz--that article is talking about euthanizing terminally ill babies. Not just any old baby they feel like. Some people would view it as ending their misery sooner."

---------------------------------------------------

Now there is some creative nationalized health care for you.

Hey Leah,

How about you put yourself out of our misery. You are terminal anyway. Death is inevitable. You are just another organism. Nothing more special about you than any amoeba. Human life aint nothin special. We kill hundreds of thousand of chickens every day just to satisfy our hunger. You not worth more than a chicken, are you?

yor bro ken

What of the women that aren't sure when they hit the PP door? What about the ones that don't want an abortion? The ones that are called "abortion vulnerable?"
Can I ask what your role is?

How does abortion help women?
Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 5:21 PM

-I think that you can schedule an appointment just to come in and speak to a counselor, without scheduling an abortion. You could ask a lot of questions and get some information if you're not sure what to do. And, aren't there hotlines as well? I'm guessing yes. If you don't use PP as a resource (I'm not saying you have to), I am know there are other channels of information. I just hope that wherever she goes...she's getting objective support.

My role...I'm a volunteer and I work when I can on weekends (schedule's been crazy and I haven't gotten back in a few weeks). I can do one of 3 things, depending on needs/timing/workload:
a)help check in patients at the front desk
b) act as a liason btwn escorts in waiting area and patients in recovery (ex, let escorts know where patient x is in process, time frame, messages, etc.)
c) work in the recovery room, which is helping move patients, take them to bathroom, monitor how she's feeling (if she needs a counselor), clean up and help the nurses where I can.

How does abortion help women? Well, it helps women who choose it in the capacity of her life that would have been negatively impacted by pregnancy/children.

Ken--

Should I bother mentioning how inappropriate that was? Probably not, you likely don't care.

First of all, I am not in misery. Quite the opposite. I have found God, I have found a husband, I have found a wonderful new country and a wonderful place to get an education. I tutor a very intelligent woman in French and Spanish, and seeing her struggle and then understand is just so fulfilling. I have friends who are a wonderful support to me and help me feel at home far from my family. My husband is the best a woman could ask for. Alhamdulillah that God has blessed me with such happiness!

Though, I have never seen a problem with people choosing to end their lives with dignity (especially in days like these where diseases like Alzheimer's are rampant). However, my religion teaches not to yearn for death, and teaches that suicide is a sin, so I will not ask for euthanasia myself, but inshallah I will end my life saying "la illaha ilallah" (there is no god but God). Only God controls death, so taking it by euthanasia or sustaining it unnaturally are both sins in my eyes. I am not here to judge others, though--God is the Only Judge.

Saying "some people" really means "some people," not necessarily myself. Please think next time you feel like you need to make a vulgar comment such as suggesting I kill myself. God bless you.

Jill--so those are supposed to be uteri? Internal organs and stuff? Am I understanding you correctly?

Danielle,

Why don't you go down to the maternity ward at your local hospital and take a baseball bat with you and aleviate the sufferring of women there who have been negatively impacted by pregnancy/children? Bash the brains out of a few newborn skulls.

IF that it is too much for you, you could start in the neonatal ICU. Those little ones aren't quite human yet.

Ease into it. Work you way up slowly to 3 year olds.

Or you could start at the other end of the spectrum. I am sure there are elderly men or women in that same hospital who have had surgery to repair a broken hip. They are so heavily mediciated they won't feel thing.

Lean into it babe. Swing away. You're aleviating suffering.

yor bro ken

Leah,
Are you advocating abortion for terminally ill babies in their mother's wombs? Do you advocate killing a baby before it dies?

Leah,

"Liz--that article is talking about euthanizing terminally ill babies. Not just any old baby they feel like."

You are winking at killing sick children.

You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig and wrap it up with a pretty little bow, but how is that any less 'vulgar' than my description.

The absence or abundance of malice in the heart of assailant does not change the fact that he/she has murdered an infant. I would suggest that the absence of emotion is an indication of a really sick person. I believe we call them sociopaths, mass murderers and serial killers.

Go talk with the one who gives you breath about that. Let me know what your creator shows you.

yor bro ken

I don't advocate anything. I just said what some people may believe.

Danielle,
In honor of Thank Your Abortion Provider day today, has anyone come by to thank their abortionist that you know of? Has anyone thanked you for helping them?

Thanks for your job description.

I'm not winking at anything. You're putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. I know you'd like me to fight with you, but I will not be provoked by your blindness.

I feel sorry for people like you. May God bless you.

Sounds like Planned Parenthood has a new Slogan: Pregnancy Bad. Abortion Good.

If I had a child that I knew would most likely die in a few days, weeks or months I would NEVER consider Euthanasia! I would want comfort care, Baptism and tell my child I LOVE him/her. I would never say "well, you're doing to die anyway, lets just speed it up". That's what Euthanasia is (its speeding up death deliberately)!

Baby Faith's mother was told her child's condition was "incompatible with life". Her mother LOVES her and no matter how long little Faith is on this Earth, she'll know she is LOVED.

http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0

Baby Elliot who lived 99 days

Why don't you go down to the maternity ward at your local hospital and take a baseball bat with you and aleviate the sufferring of women there who have been negatively impacted by pregnancy/children? Bash the brains out of a few newborn skulls.
Posted by: kbhvac at March 10, 2009 5:52 PM

-You're officially ignored from here on out. I've been civil to you in the past, but I really can't respond to this w/o some major ugliness. Done.

In honor of Thank Your Abortion Provider day today, has anyone come by to thank their abortionist that you know of? Has anyone thanked you for helping them?
Thanks for your job description.
Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 6:04 PM

-Honestly, Carla - I didn't even know that existed. And, if it was this week or last, I wasn't at the clinic so I wouldn't know. And I don't esteem myself to be that important in those patients experiences...I'm not a 'provider'...I mean, one or two has said thank you if I recall, but whether or not they'll remember down the road, I wouldn't know. There is a particular doctor there who I notice a few patients will ask to see in reco room to say thanks to her.

Leah,

Thank for your blessing.

You can save the pity for 'terminally ill babies and the 'some people who believe they are doing God's work by aleviating their suffering when they murder them.

Do not hide behind me what you think other people believe.

Tell me what you believe.

Does your Creator have no opinion on murder and justice?

yor bro ken

Liz,
Thank you for the links. :)
Wow! Day 16 for Faith?? She is a beauty.
I cry through the whole Elliot video.

Danielle,
Yep. It was today. :)
I asked on another thread if anyone from 40 Days for Life was praying in front of your PP?
Sorry for all of the questions...it's how I learn.

Danielle,

Your too late. The major 'uglyness' of your position is and has been on display for quite a while.

I just removed the lipstick and the bow.

It was always ugly.

yor bro ken

Ken, did you ever stop to consider that it might be an abundance of love rather than an abundance of malice that might bring a parent to euthanize their child living in pain? Or family to allow a loved one to go on their own terms with dignity and less suffering if they so desire?

Ken-

As in Christianity, abortion is not directly addressed in Islam. Generally, it is only considered acceptable within the first 120 days for the health or life of the mother. Suicide is always haraam (forbidden). However, it is also a sin to preserve life artificially, as that is seen as acting for God.

I have always been avidly pro-choice, including the choice of euthanasia. However, I live in a state of Islam, which means "submission to God," so what God dictates I follow. This includes not forcing my beliefs onto other people, not cursing others for their sins, and not judging people who sin.

That is what I believe. I am not hide anything.

Leah, the Christian church condemns abortion. The Bible speaks out against it, along with all other forms of murder, in its very first pages (see Genesis 9 for the special status of human life). The Christian church has always spoken out against abortion. Read the Old Testament and God's perspective on Molech. Read the church fathers. Yes, today there are liberal false churches which are wolves dressed up in sheep's clothing. They are synagogues of Satan. There have always been false churches.

I'm surprised by the Mohammedan perspective as you represent it. In the end, I probably don't care too much. I'm not any more Mohammedan than I am secular humanist. I want to be a Christian.

Liz, thank you for the link to the video. I have been following little Faith's blog, so precious... but I had not had the extreme privilege yet to witness that amazing video. I think everyone should make sure to go see it. Just so people don't have to scroll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0

I'm sitting here in tears at the beauty and love.

Of course, I'm also still mourning one of my little ones from work who I just found out passed... you see, while Leah and others like her discuss the "humane" nature of euthanizing babies with medical problems, my mission is to love them. Yes, my job (what I get paid a paycheck for) is to suction their trachs and monitor their cardiac status and watch over them in the night... feeding through g-tubes, diapering, weighing, administering medications, and so on.

But my mission (the pay I receive from God) is the rare privilege of holding these precious little ones in my arms... loving them. Loving their families. Knowing that when I am there for a night, their mothers feel safe enough to go home and sleep in their own bed. They do not speak. They often cry. To hear them cry and know that when I walk in and sing to them and touch them they will settle... to have playful times with them when I see beautiful, full-faced smiles... I know that I walk those corridors and play with angels.

I enjoy my nights working in the Peds ER. But I feel truly whole on my nights caring for these precious little ones who capture my heart in a single instant.

The mercy that Leah and others speak of? That is not mercy. That is murder. These children love life... and when they are too tired to continue, they know... they signal to us, and they pass on their own. No need to torture them... they only belong here for a short time and then an eternity in heaven. Oh, how I look forward to seeing all of my precious angel babies when I get there!

Elisabeth,
Your post made me cry. Thank you so much for the love and care that you give to the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for honoring these babies and giving them dignity as the precious ones that they are. Thank you for doing so much to sustain life and not to end it.

I asked on another thread if anyone from 40 Days for Life was praying in front of your PP?
Sorry for all of the questions...it's how I learn.
Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 6:21 PM

-I must have missed that post, sorry. Ya no idea if there were protesters today, but perhaps. All the times I've been there on weekend mornings, I've only experienced one group of protesters...a group of nuns and priests praying outside for a bit. Other times there's a really old man standing on the corner with literature but that's it. That said, we're in the most liberal area ever, so we don't get much trouble.

Nuns and priests that are praying are hardly protesters or trouble makers, but I am glad there has been a presence outside of the PP where you volunteer!!

Posted by: Leah at March 10, 2009 7:07 PM

"Suicide is always haraam (forbidden).

I have always been avidly pro-choice, including the choice of euthanasia.

However, I live in a state of Islam, which means "submission to God," so what God dictates I follow."

-------------------------------------------------------

Leah,

I will be acknowledge that 'GOD' does not always act 'logicly' at least as most humans understand 'logic'.

HE sometimes acts in ways that defy human 'logic'.

But if suicide is forbidden, then how can homicide be permissable? If I am not allowed the liberty to kill myself without disobeying God, then how is it permissable to murder someone else, even if it is their desire.

How can that unlawful act be submission to God?

How can the 'whatever will be, will be' attitude be pleasing to God if it allows the murder of the innocent?

When you make that case to God, how does HE respond to you. Does HE shake His head in agreement or does He shake His head in dismay?

Does He laugh as a mother does when her child says something silly because that is the best the child can do at that young age, or does a tear run down His cheek and onto his beard at the pain it causes Him when one of His own has a heart so cold?

yor bro ken

Nuns and priests that are praying are hardly protesters or trouble makers, but I am glad there has been a presence outside of the PP where you volunteer!!
Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 9:01 PM

-No, I wouldn't call them trouble, either. The singing I could hear was kind of nice, actually.

Posted by: Leah at March 10, 2009 7:07 PM

"As in Christianity, abortion is not directly addressed in Islam."

----------------------------------------------------

I can not make an informed comment on what Islam or the Koran teaches.

The word 'abortion' is not found in any english translation of the 'book' of which I am aware. Nor is an equivalent of that word found in any of the origial languages of which I am aware.

But it would be intellecutally dishonest to say that the 'book' does not speak of the humanity of the prenatal human being. It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that the 'book' does not define homicide in it's different degrees (manslaughter vs murder).

To say that in Christianity abortion is not addressed 'directly' may be true if you believe that the absence of the word 'abortion' in the book is evidence God does not care.

That would be a very shallow understanding of the 'book' and a superficial knowledge of God.

I would suggest that you use a bible software program and do a search for the following words: Murder, manslaughter, manslayer, kill, blood guiltiness, innocent blood.

I will do the same with Koran. I am confident I will find enough evidence to bring in a verdict of guilty to those who murder the unborn, the terminally ill, the mentally impaired and the elderly.

yor bro ken

Leah,

Here are few passages from the Koran, that deal with homicide.

'Do not kill 'believers'

'Do not bury your female children alive, for what crime was she killed?'

'Be good to your parents, kill not your children...'

'Take not life which Allah has made sacred'

002.178 O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
Al-Qur'an, 002.178 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])

004.093 If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.
Al-Qur'an, 004.090, 093 (An-Nisa [Women])

006.151 Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.
Al-Qur'an, 006.151 (Al-Anaam [Cattle, Livestock])

017.033 Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).
Al-Qur'an, 017.033 (Al-Isra [Isra, The Night Journey, Children of Israel])

025.068 Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment.
Al-Qur'an, 025.068 (Al-Furqan [The Criterion, The Standard])

081.007 When the souls are sorted out, (being joined, like with like);
081.008 When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned -
081.009 For what crime she was killed;

Al-Qur'an, 081.007-009 (At-Takwir [The overthrowing])

I have read word studies by Muslim scholars that use the Koran to describe the maturation process of prenatal human beings.

So the question to be answered is: When your mom was pregnant with you what was the species of embryo/fetus resident in her womb?

If you are not sure ask your Maker or your mom.

yor bro ken

Danielle: "Oliver, I can see that this will be a brief discussion thread between the two of us. I now recall that you leap to a rather unpleasant tone with other PC posters on different threads, and I'm not interested in having the same type of exhaustive exchange with you."

Well Im not in the mood to go after you for now, but let me explain this "unpleasant" tone you speak of. I dont like dealing with liars or incompetents. I take an aggresive stance when people change my words or avoid questions and parts of posts. I simply dont take that kind of BS. Arrogance without substance should not be tolerated either. Just think before you post and I will more than likely treat you with great respect. You can ask Rae and Pip about our Darwin thread.

(By the way, if either of you are reading this, I have to say I may either be convinced or at the minimum on the fence for the issue after the discussion. Particularly from you Rae. Too bad you cant apply the same logic to the abortion debate.)

But if suicide is forbidden, then how can homicide be permissable?

I'm not Muslim, and I'm definitely not Leah, but I think she specifically said that she views suicide as forbidden but does not think it should be illegal. Likely because submission to God should be a voluntary choice.

She said:

Though, I have never seen a problem with people choosing to end their lives with dignity (especially in days like these where diseases like Alzheimer's are rampant). However, my religion teaches not to yearn for death, and teaches that suicide is a sin, so I will not ask for euthanasia myself,

so it would seem consistent with her stance on abortion, as far as not submitting to the will of God is concerned.

If anyone here thinks killing a baby is acceptable if "adoption is not an option"--let me tell you, adoption is always an option. I hereby officially volunteer to adopt any infant that would otherwise be killed because "adoption is not an option." I know I'm not the only one who would do so, either.

The answer is Denmark.
Denmark allows doctors to withhold treatment in cases where someone is deemed not economical to repair or in cases of "defective" babies that make it to birth.

By the way, do any of you trust a bureaucrat to decide what is "cost effective" treatment? I don't.

In Oregon, when the law legalizing assisted suicide was debated, supporters said it would never be pushed as a means to save money. But it has been. Cancer patients on the state health plan have been told they would not be covered for treatment but would be covered for assisted suicide. So it is not that big a stretch to see far greater intrusions by government into life and death decisions, with bean counters making the decisions.
Under the Oregon guidelines, the nursing home where my mother-in-law will finish her days could catch her in a lucid moment and have her sign a consent form to kill her. She is 85, blind, diabetic, amputee, and losing a battle with dementia. Of course a bureaucrat would say it is not "cost effective" to keep her alive. But who are we to decide what a life is worth?

And does anyone recall that the dean of "bioethics" at Princeton proposed allowing parents to choose death for a "defective" baby up to 30 days after birth?
So yes I am very concerned about what will happen in the next few years.
If my nephew could understand it I'm sure he would be concerned too. As well, my brother's brother-in-law who is 39 years old with down syndrome. Functionally he is about 5 years old. What level of treatment will be deemed not cost effective for him?

"In Oregon, when the law legalizing assisted suicide was debated, supporters said it would never be pushed as a means to save money. But it has been. Cancer patients on the state health plan have been told they would not be covered for treatment but would be covered for assisted suicide".

Mark, are these particular cancer patients being denied coverage for the treatment because there is very little if any chance for it to work? Without legal assisted suicide, would they still be denied this cancer treatment?

This is not necessarily a case of assisted suicide taking the place of treatment. It could be assisted suicide taking the place of prolonged and intense suffering as per the patient's wishes.

YCW, I'm with you... and in the rare cases where the abortion is for medical issues and not "just" convenience, I'm qualified to handle that too... I'm a peds RN and daddy is an EMT! Plenty of hands to help out, too.

Under the Oregon guidelines, the nursing home where my mother-in-law will finish her days could catch her in a lucid moment and have her sign a consent form to kill her.

Posted by: Mark at March 11, 2009 10:51 AM

Mark, have you read the guidelines? They are available online.

asitis: what if the treatment is a cancer drug that helps keep the pain at bay so they can enjoy their last days on Earth with their families? Instead, the state refuses to pay for the drug and suggests they KILL THEMSELVES instead.

Well, Mark, many people with Down Syndrome have cardiac issues and weight issues. Chances are he would be deemed not eligible for something like bypass surgery or other lifesaving operations that would be reserved for the more "deserving"....

Insanity, I tell you.

BO's plan rammed through in the screwulus bill sets up a "cost effectiveness test" and given the fondness many have for how England does things, you can bet dollars to donuts that any treatment beyond cheap drugs will be "too expensive" for anyone over certain age.
In England a 55 year old man was denied hip replacement because he was "too old." My step father at 65 got bilateral knee replacement under Medicare.
And yes, assisted suicide is used in place of treatment. In an ideal world, it would be up to a patient to decide whether to fight or die. But Oregon is taking that choice away.
My father was diagnosed with cancer in November of 1996. By the time it was found, it had already spread through out his body. No amount of treatment was going to change the terminal diagnosis. But he decided to fight it as long his body would let him. My wife knew the chemo was not working because she had legal access to his test results. In May of '97 doctors told him he had about two months left. He didn't feel like waiting that long. He was at home under hospice care with a morphine pump to manage the pain. He was a shell of the man he once was. He died quietly on the eve of father's day, two weeks after being told he had two months.
He was not denied the choice of treatment even though his doctors told him he was terminal.
Oregon and now BO's newly created bureaucracy will deny patients the choice. Again I ask, who is to decide how much a few months or a few day of life are worth?
I fully expect BO to ram through a federal assisted suicide law. And it will become a "treatment option" for patients deemed not economical to repair. It is already in Oregon. Washington state will follow soon since they just legalized assisted suicide.

liz @12:56

Is that what's happening here Liz?I don't think so.

It sounds to me that this is more likely a cancer treatment that would not be effective as opposed to what you are suggesting , a drug that would be effective in making the pain more manageable.Why would they deny that relief and only offer assisted suicide instead? That would be using the assisted suicide to save money..... Something that is not permitted under the guidelines

mark: no amount of treatment was going to change the terminal diagnosis.

And yet your father chose to have the treatment no matter how futile. It must be that his health insurance covered this or he had funds to pay for it himself. As the population ages we will be faced with more and more situations like this. As much as we want people like your father to be able to say "I don't care if there's no real hope of this working, give it to me anyway" is it really a good idea to waste money on this, be it tax dollars or everyones health coverage payments? What do we give up inexchange for this?

Mark,
I am so sorry about your father.

Mark, I meant to pass on my condolences as well. I'm sorry, I got caught up in my thought and forgot to express that. I actually had an identical case with my own father in 2000. I am all too familar with the situation and the sorrow.

Liz, interestingly enough, pain is not one of the major reasons people in Oregon have chosen assisted suicide for themselves, according to data from a study I happened upon just now.

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/orstats.htm

The reasons are, in decreasing order: loss of autonomy, decreased ability to socialize, loss of bodily functions, loss of dignity, burden to others, pain, financial implications.

"In England a 55 year old man was denied hip replacement because he was "too old."

Where did you read this Mark? That seems awfully young to be denied simply on the basis of age????

"And yes, assisted suicide is used in place of treatment"

Posted by: Mark at March 11, 2009 1:17 PM

Where? In Oregon? Do you have evidence of this?

Mark... my condolences on the loss of your father.

William F. Buckley once said, 'The bible does not say that stupidity is sin, but it does frown on it.'

When little children are frighened by something they shut their eyes tightly, naively believing that if they can't see the danger, it isn't there.

There is a line from the movie 'Tigerland' where some Army guys are who are in basic training before being shipped off to Viet Nam are having a discussion about the 'war'. Some of the guys are all gung ho to see some real action.

The protagonist says to one of them he needs to be still and listen for the popping sound.

The other fellow says what do you mean popping sound?

The protagonist says, that's the sound your head will make when you finally pull it out of your colon!

I am continually amazed at how stump stupid some people choose to be.

They have to work at it. No body can be born that stupid and survive to adulthood. They have to dumb themselves down after they have reached the age of majority.

You tell them soemthing. They challenge you on it. You give them corroboration they demand. They say it is an aberration. The rare exception. A mistake. Taken out of context. An exageration.

They labor to find creative ways to explain away the truth when it does not fit their self imposed delusion.

This is not insanity or mental illness. It a willfull 'choice' to be more ignorant tomorrow than they were today.

I used to think it was not possible for them to get any dumber, but they keep finding new ways to manifest their abject intellectual poverty.
-----------------------------------------------------

Mark,

My sympathy on the passing of your father. It is never easy to lose the ones you love.

I have no reason to doubt anything you have posted today. Your observations are correct and your projections, based on recent history and current events, are, if anything, conservative.

The decline in healthcare is accelerating. The financial downturn coupled with a graying population will only add to the momentum.

The misguided masses that elected this crop of clueless clowns do not possess the integrity to accept responsibility for what they have done. They will be gleefully polishing the brass and arranging the deck chairs on ghe Titanic, oblivious to water rising around their ankles as the their ship sinks ever more rapidly beneath the sea and sucks them and their families friends and neighbors down in it's wake.

PBHO does not have an inkling of what he is doing. Watching him and his keystone kops cast of characters run around with their pants on fire is laughable. These guys look like something out of a Farside comic strip: Groping in the darkness attempting do it yourself brain surgery by Braille.

yor bro ken

The reasons are, in decreasing order: loss of autonomy, decreased ability to socialize, loss of bodily functions, loss of dignity, burden to others, pain, financial implications.

Wow, burden to others? I wonder: Are they told they are a burden / led to believe they are a burden?