It does hurt to watch.

I am so sorry baby David. I am praying that your short
life and horrifying death stir us to action.

brings tears to my eyes...

They ran that on Drudge for a few days last week.

I think Fr. Pavone is right - America won't stop abortion until America sees abortion.

It is time to abolish abortion.

Wow. I'm going to go wipe my eyes now...

Okay. This morning on my way to work I was (as I always am) listening to conservative talk radio. It's the only news outlet that will report on what is actually happening instead of what they want you to think is happening...so anyway...I just feel completely depressed right now. The government is spinning out of control and is controlled (I use that term loosely) by a bunch of liars and thieves. Abortion is reportedly lower than it has been in awhile, which is good, but with this new president, how long will that be the case?? He's basically in love with anything that kills an unborn human's life...It all seems so futile and I just wish I could make a difference somewhere for someone. Right now one of my friendships is strained due to this issue. My friend had an abortion between her two children, and gets extremely defensive about this topic. She says people (prolifers) should stay out of her uterus, that no one understands the needs of her family like she does. I don't understand, after having her son, how she could have had an abortion. I know I'm rambling, but this ad just brought so much emotion to the surface...I'll go now. I'll be praying for these precious children, that their mothers learn better before they make this mistake.

Please everyone post it on your facebook/twitter accounts.

Becca - may I suggest something to comfort you?

These days are like the dark hours before the Civil War, when the nation was in a turmoil because despite efforts to educate, many refused to see the humanity of all men, despite their differences in skin color. With Dred Scott, SCOTUS declared men are property - incapable of being called persons and citizens of the US.

Roe vs Wade is the Dred Scott of our day.

The dark and violent storms that rolled over our nation to release blacks from their bondage brought about a greater good. Our country has just demonstrated that the cause to which men bled and died did indeed find hope fulfilled.

No one can call a black man a non-person because of his skin color, but they do so because of his age.

A day is coming when no child will suffer David's fate because someone decided he was not a human being deserving of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a fight of skin color, or age. This is a war about the intrinsic value of all human beings being fought against death itself. Our Civil War was but one action in this struggle.

It is not yet over, but there is Hope.

The battle has already been won.

Chris, thank you so much for that. I am going to copy and save what you wrote so that I can read it on the days when I feel completely overwhelmed.

That's very kind and comforting of you to say, Mr. Arsenault.

His name is David?

Then the massacre of David and his brothers and sisters won't be in vain. There is something, which I cannot call to explain, sagacious about innocence- the wisdom to know about love, the wisdom to know nothing about intolerance. David doesn't know that intolerance for him claimed his arms, legs, head, and torso. Try to forgive. And, if we learn anything from David and this very long December, then it ought to be that of all things, people have got to be free to experience life and that those endowed with life must learn to live all that they have been given by God.

This won't last for much longer. It can't. God will do something.

Vannah,
Click on the Q and A about David under the video.

Becca,
Please stay with your friend through it all. I know it's hard. She is denying her grief and trying to justify what she has done and angry that she knows what she has done. Abortion promises freedom but never delivers. She knows. Deep down she knows, just as we all know.
I will be praying for her and for you. Please email me if you want to talk further.

Posted by: Vannah at March 20, 2009 8:29 AM
--------

If you look under the video there is link to Questions and Answers that Priests for Life put up.

I've used David's pictures before for demonstration purposes, but didn't know his name. He is to abortion what Emmett Till is to civil rights:

http://www.emmetttillmurder.com/

Check out the Choose Life License Plates. http://www.choose-life.org

I wonder if pro-lifers would stop using the word "abortion"
to describe child killing, if there would be a subsequent improvement
in our nation's understanding?

When we spend so much time talking about a medical
procedure, the baby being ripped limb from limb
doesn't always come to mind.

Baby David,
Your death not only looks like you went through terrible pain but your death shows that you've lost your mommy too. Your mommy must have mourned the loss of you, I'll bet your mommy didn't know that would be how you leave this world. Please forgive your mommy and I hope one day you two are both back together. I'll bet your mommy DID love you but those abortion clinics are really good at getting good mommies to kill their babies.
Your death will not be in vein however, your death will hopefully start a movement of others really knowing what that word abortion is. Keep your chin up kiddo, your story is bringing a little more truth in America.
Even though I never met you, I love you.
I pray that your sitting up there with God plotting how to end this abortion holocaust.
Hugs 'n Kisses Baby David,
AK Krystal

I've seen enough photos like this to last several lifetimes, and each time I do, I ask myself the same questions:
1.) HOW can any doctor do this and sleep at night?
2.) HOW can any woman do this to her child?

As a society, we advance by leaps and bounds in technology and science, but we lose our sense of humanity and respect for life with each step.

I can't look at these photo's anymore.

Women are told it is not a child and want to believe that. These are women that are vulnerable to the lies told at the mills. A crisis is a crisis. We should all be ready and willing to help her.

I learned the hard way Mike, as well as so many of my post abortive friends now fighting for the lives of these innocent babies and the hearts of the mommies that regret killing them.

National Helpline for Abortion Recovery
1-866-482-LIFE

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at March 20, 2009 10:19 AM
------

Leslie - I agree with you, but what about early medical abortions? Technically they kill the child, but most people refuse to concede it's a child, even in the face of amazing evidence.

For instance the Endowment for Human Development shows embryoscopies right on their home page:

http://www.ehd.org/

A heartbeat at 3 weeks!

So it's a matter of not only showing people the gruesome details, but educating others as to the substance and intrinsic value of our unborn generations.

Chris, that's an important issue you bring up. 89% of abortions occur prior to 12 weeks.

Hmmmmm....where are the Obamaphiles on this one???? I've said it before and I'll say it again - Obama got 0% of the pro-life vote. Anyone who could vote for that soulless piece of garbage and claim to be pro-life is outright lying. And I notice the cowards stay away when it's impossible to argue...

Hmmmmm guess I'm in stealth mode. Invisibility cloak... shazam!

That's right, Chris. In fact, that is why I hesitate to endorse the pictures of aborted babies. Not because I think it's offensive or anything like that, but because I fear that it may undermine the humanity of the embryo or very early fetus. That 3 week old embryo which is killed in an abortion or even the 6 day old embryo which is killed as a result of harvesting its stem cells is just as much a human and a person as the baby who is killed by a D & E at 24 weeks or the baby who is ripped limb from limb at 28 weeks. So if someone sees a 3 week old embryo being torn apart, it's like "so what"? Well it is just as horrible and gruesome and revolting as the dismemberment of the 28 week old.

But on the other hand, the pictures are quite effective at changing hearts. They really show what abortion does, and it hits home in a powerful way for a lot of people. So it is tough for me. I just can't stand any innocent human being being killed, not at 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, or 6 decades.

Becca:

We pro-lifers are feeling the same things.

Remember He has overcome the world.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 20, 2009 11:51 AM
-----

Right - development (D) has no bearing on the intrinsic moral value of human beings, because toddlers are not considered less human than teens, who are less developed than mature adults.

In the name of "rights" the violence done to David would not be suffered for any other age. But even if performed earlier, against a less developed human being, it would be no less of a violent ending.

Without the substance of human flesh, whether a zygote or a newborn, such horror cannot be committed. A woman is not pregnant if she's not with child.

Without the substance of human flesh, there's no basis for person.

Can those who demand such "rights" withstand the violent destruction they are so eager to allow upon other flesh?

Violence is not fought with violence, but with whole sacrifice.

I'm looking forward to that better day when I'll celebrate with David in the Lord.

The battle has already been won.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 20, 2009 8:05 AM

yes, absolutely correct! But, we have to work hard to try to make things right again in this life...

Bobby I think the problem with pictures is actually not with the pictures! (see it's so simple!)I think it has to do with the mindset of people who are prolife and people who are proabort.
A person who supports abortion looks BACK and sees cells, two cells, 4 cells, etc.
A person who is prolife looks AHEAD and sees a person with a life, a future with promise.

Its interesting that the only proabort comment took this perspective - looking BACK and did not express horror at what was shown here.

Posted by: angel at March 20, 2009 1:25 PM
-------

That's a really interesting observation angel. Would make for a very intriguing study, because while I think it's a little more complicated than this, your observation frames things in light of discouraging "past" vs a hopeful future.

If what you are saying is true, it would be reflected in lots of perspectives all over the Internet, in the multiple places where abortion is debated.

Chris: It's just that people who support abortion cannot seem to see the future possibilities of the embryo. They see only cells and this view intrigues me.

Just clicked on the link about the baby. Poor little soul: he would have been 20 years old this year. What a disgusting waste. :(

Moving.

Even with the audio turned OFF.

"I would not want my daughters 'punished' with a baby." Barack Obama

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

A confidential survey conducted by PPFA in 1986 found widespread ignorance and confusion at it's affiliates concerning adoption.

[Does anybody really believe that the 'ignorance and confusion' at PP concerning adoption has been resolved and if it has been resolved, which way do you believe PP went with the resolution?
More emphasis on adoption, or less?]

Thirty five percent of PP affiliates 'OPPOSED' offering adoption services because

adoption is inconsistent with the goals and practices of PP.

Only 20% percent expressed high enthusiasm for including adoption as part of PP's mission statement.

In reply to the question, "Should adoption be part of PP's mission?", some typical responses included:

'No, it would present an apparent and possibly actual conflict of interest. Difficult to finance. Very draining on staff time and overall effort.'

[This next comment is very revealing as to how PP really views 'choice'. PP clearly has a preference for the 'choice' for a dead baby.]

'Only as a referral. It might be very confusing to maintain a pro-choice stance when an agencey is actually invested in finding an infant to place.'

[Obviously in PP's perspective the decision to kill the pre-natal infant is the only 'choice' they are 'invested' in.]

'A pregnant 15 year old should not be seen as the "solution" to an infertile couples problems. We need to be very careful not to cast women in the role of "baby producers" as if there were no effect on them if they place their infant for adoption...."

[In PP's world there is no 'effect' on women when they opt for the dead baby.)

"If Title X dollars are going to be used for adoption, I think we should position ourselves to use them."

[It is not about assisting women who choose a live birth. It is about getting more Title X 'dollars'. By the way those 'dollars' did not just materialize of thin air. Those 'dollars' were confiscated from working Americans.]

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

It's not about freedom to choose from the full range of options. It is only about a 'choice' for a dead baby. PP does not profit from a 'choice' for a live birth.

"Nonprofit does not mean unprofitable or charitable. Nonprofit merely means that dividends cannot be ['legally'] paid to owners. Nonprofits like PP are often very profitable."

yor bro ken

ps: I apologize for the retreaded statement but it is worth repeating.

Chris,

Thank you so much for the moral support!! It means a lot. The massacre of our children is so twisted I can't even fathom how a woman could agree to it. I just hug and hold my baby so tight when I think of what other women do to theirs...and thank God she is healthy.

Its a good video, but showing the actual graphic images of abortion would be more effective and move more people.

Like this Choice Blues

Women are not told what an abortion does to their unborn baby. Because they are told it's not a baby.
It's just a bunch of cells remember?

If I were shown graphic pictures of CHOICE I never would have done it.

I found this in one of my blog posts. It's from Dr. Leroy Carhart's testimony, in which he was questioned about how he performs his extraction abortions. Carhart indicates that he tried to grab the baby and get it positioned to where he can suck out the brain without taking the baby apart first. But sometimes, he indicates, the baby sticks a limb out through the cervix, and it's just easer to pull that part off and go from there:

Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.

Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?

Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.

Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes.

Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?

Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.

Question: And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the fetus?

Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.

Question: At what point is the fetus...does the fetus die during that process?

Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.

oh Christina, that comment just made me wanna puke.
I can't even begin to imagine the pain the baby must feel.
It makes me weep.

I can understand why the abortion photos get people upset, but its no reason to hide the photos.

Another effective (maybe even more effective) tool for changing hearts are the 3d ulrasound photos... they are amazing.

"I don't want my daughters to be punished with a baby." Barack Obama

No [live or intact] child left behind.

A pregnant womans right to a dead baby is absolute.

If the human embryo/fetus is not alive, why do you have to kill her/him BEFORE you remove his/her body from the uterus?

Elective abortion is homocide.

yor bro ken

Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?

Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.

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

Who could listen to that testimony and not want to slapt the dude upside the head and ask, 'Man, what is wrong with you?'

What have you done to YOURSELF?

Is there anything left of YOUR humanity?

How did you become so stump stupid?

Did it come natural or did you work at it?

Did you take a small flaw and practise at it until you reached this level of psychotic proficiency?

If we give you a shovel is there any hope that you will finally figure out how to use it and dig a hole so deep you cannot climb out of it before you download your genetic information into some unsuspecting female.

yor bro ken

Who could listen to that testimony and not want to slapt the dude upside the head and ask, 'Man, what is wrong with you?'

lol, I QUITE agree. What IS wrong with a person like this?

GREEAAAATTT comment, Ken!! Zowie!!

@anonymous: go slap yourself (at least twice!)

Anonymous, that hardly seems necessary. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't give you the right to call them names. Ever heard of respectfully disagreeing? I don't agree with them either, but I would tend to try and get my point across in a more eloquent fashion than with profanity.

Don't worry about Anonymous. We have more important things to worry about besides insulting, disparaging comments coming from an anti-children's rights fanatic. We must keep our minds focused on David for the time being and bringing justice for him and for all people like him.

YBK : Excellent !

All anyone has to do is LOOK at Carhart, Tiller or Warren Hern (another late term abortionist) to see that they aren't "right".

All 3 of them look deranged and maniacal...which they are.

Carharts "Butcher Shop" looks like a converted garage where engines are torn apart and reassembled,...only in in his case it's human babies that are vivisected and reassembled to make sure he "got it all".

angel, Chris,

The ability to focus positively on the FUTURE requires HOPE, the lack of which is a major influence in the decision to abort, as I see it.

Posted by: Janet at March 21, 2009 2:11 AM

Right - but it can't be a false hope, as some have offered.

Janet, Chris: I agree that abortion is a symbol of a lack of hope and a lack of faith too.

This lack of hope is manifested in the contraceptive mentality as well, in which couples are too afraid of the future/lacking in trust of God's goodness, to allow the possibility of new life. Pope Benedict XVI states that it is this mentality that is directly responsible for the West's demographic winter.

A prolife view is very different because an unplanned pregnancy is put in the hands of God, trusting and with faith that He will work things out. A baby is a sign that life will go on!

A person with no faith has a much greater difficulty - the unplanned pregnancy seems hopeless and looks insurmountable.It is this despair that turns the woman towards abortion.

asitis,
did you watch it? I am assuming that you didn't given your flip remark.

Eileen#2: she's the ONLY person on this thread who did not gasp in horror.
In fact, it didn't even faze her. The only thing asitis was interested in promoting was that many babies are killed prior to 12 weeks.
so what? What is the difference if you die at 8wks or 12 wks or 20 wks? You are still dead.

This was topped off by a flippant remark about disappearing (actually "lurking").

For some reason, she couldn't deal with the reality of abortion shown on this thread.

angel -- you've made my point!

Eileen#2: she's the ONLY person on this thread who did not gasp in horror.
In fact, it didn't even faze her. The only thing asitis was interested in promoting was that many babies are killed prior to 12 weeks.
so what? What is the difference if you die at 8wks or 12 wks or 20 wks? You are still dead.

This was topped off by a flippant remark about disappearing (actually "lurking").

For some reason, she couldn't deal with the reality of abortion shown on this thread.

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 11:53 AM

"Angel", I don't disappear... that would be you, right? Tee heee. What is it? Like twice in the time I've been here anyway... only to be reborn.

No, my comment about stealth mode was in response to Kevin's about no prochoicers commenting. I guess he didn't see me!

Why is it important that 89% of abortions occur before 1 weeks? Because the words and pictures you are using to horrify people about abortion are not what most abortions are. Bobby touched on this somewhat. I know that makes no difference to you and other prolifers (and I understand why), but you're not everyone. That why they don't make the difference you are hoping for.

Sorry, that should be "... before 12 weeks?"

Posted by: Christina at March 20, 2009 5:15 PM
*****************************************

Oh, dear Jesus...I don't even know what to say to that. :(

As for when a child is aborted, no, it does not make any difference. Whether one is ripped apart as described above or ripped apart when being suctioned through a tube, the result is the same.

6 weeks: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Science/pix/2007/08/01/embryoblue_2.jpg

8 weeks: http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/images/38week8.jpg

10 weeks: http://media.ehd.org/images/prenatal_numbered_491/the-1-week-fetus.jpg

BTW, if you'd like me to post links of 8 week aborted children, I can do so. They're human beings with fingers and toes who have been dismembered. It isn't pretty. They're not 12 weeks yet, so they'd be counted in among that "89%."

I'm sure some people WOULD be and ARE horrified at the photos of 8 and 10 week aborted children.

Pictures that show what abortion actually does SHOULD horrify people. We don't "use" them to horrify. They are the truth.

duh?What? words and pictures are NOT what most abortions are? okaaaayyyy....

What are most abortions asitis? Why does that picture NOT represent an abortion?

You STILL have not commented on the picture. You have not expressed even the slightest degree of horror/dismay, hell, we'd even settle for sadness here, because abortion does not horrify you. Only sociopaths react as you have done.

And you disappeared from this thread because you cannot bring yourself to focus on the topic at hand - a dead baby. As Elizabeth mentioned on another thread you serve to attack people, ridicule ideas and derail discussion. Too bad. To me you have all the symptoms of a post-abortive woman.

have a nice day in your concocted hockey-rink, lalala land world! :)

BTW, if you'd like me to post links of 8 week aborted children, I can do so.

Kel, that is not the problem. Asitis well knows what a baby aborted at 8 wks looks like. She simply does not care. I'm sure Jill has posted pics like this before.

The pictures will touch some souls, but only the most hardened will look at the arm of a baby who died in agony and say, "So what?"

I think it's a reaction only a very hardened feminist or a post-abortive woman who has not yet experienced healing, can have.

"Angel" if it makes you feel good to believe I am a sociopath, I'm not going to try to stop you. I "disappeared" from the thread because I had already said what I have to say.

Oh, and BTW, it wasn't hockey today. It's lacrosse season now and man is it good to be outside in the sunshine cheering for our varsity boys!

you still have NO reaction asitis!
Amazing!

Did you even watch the video? If not, why not? If so, what was your reaction?

you are a master of deflection! lol :P

Thank you Kel for posting the pictures. I was 10 weeks along and had the abortion and 10 weeks along when I had a miscarriage and held that baby in my hand. Looked just like the picture. Comforts me somehow. God couldn't have planned that any better to get to my hardened heart and my thick skull.

Any more numbers and percentages to throw out there, asitis? It is what you hide behind when the truth gets to be too much to bear.

angel,
I think you're awesome!! I am so glad you are here!

Carla, I'm not hiding behind any numbers. Just pointing out that most abortions are not represented by the photos you show. And again... I know that makes no difference to you. But it does to the people on the other side of the fence.

And no "Angel", no reaction for you. You'll just have to keep guessing. You want to believe the worst anyway. So if it makes you feel good, keep on keepin' on!

Oh and by the way... we won! And my son scored twice!

And no "Angel", no reaction for you.
Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 6:08 PM

well, what a clever response! I"m just blown away. :P

the video is what the thread was about! So you didn't watch the video. OR you did. Nevertheless,

All you could come up with was a statistic!

Do you not see how your (lack of) reaction is so bizarre?

You've made no point, not with words nor with stats. An aborted baby at 8 wks is still a dead baby. Women who miscarry at 8, 10 ,11 weeks often see what they lost - a baby! Our pictures and our words demonstrate this point. EVERY TIME.

Is the intent of the video, in part, to persuade people to become prolife? Well if so, then perhaps what I had to say is of some value. I know it's hard for you to accept that.

what you said is that most abortions are done at 12 weeks or less.

So what?

You are implying that what? somehow an abortion done at 11 weeks 6 days, 10 hours and 33 mins is less suffering, less death for the baby, less loss than one done at 28 weeks?

That somehow an abortion committed at 8 weeks involves less of a loss?

That somehow an abortion committed at 6 weeks involves less pain, less of a loss?

What is being lost here? Is the baby less human at 12 weeks, 10 weeks, 8 weeks, or 6 weeks than it would be at 28 weeks?

You've made no point except to state that many abortions are done under 12 weeks. SO WHAT!

Either you watched the video or you didn't. Either way you felt nothing except the urge to do some math. That's sad.

There are probably several intentions for the video. For you asitis, it does show what you so adamantly support. You support it and crow about it and argue until the cows come home....

David died and his tiny body was torn apart and you are fine with that.

Did I say I was "fine with that" Carla?

"Angel" there's no math being done here. All I did was state a fact. It makes no difference to yoy whether we are talking about 6 minute, 6 hours, 6 days, 6 weeks or 6 months old. But to others is does. And these are the ones you are trying to sway. Does Emergency Contraception look any dirrenent? Does a chemical abortion look any different. How about a 6 day old embryo? How are you planning on getting people to be just as horrified about these? That's your challenge.

But hey, why listen to me? I'm only on the other side of the fence with all these people. ;) I'm sure you don't need my input.

Are you fine with that, asitis? Watch the video. Click on the pictures of David's body. Read the information about him. He would have been 20 years old this year.

Asitis, no one is the lesser human because of looks. What about anyone with Treacher Collins? They don't look like everyone else so is it different to stop their heartbeats? After all, it's all relative. What's right for one is not right for all and what we interpret is not what everyone else interprets.

I simply cannot- not because I am more moral than thou; I have far too many flaws to count- look an aborted child in the eyes or what is left of his body and condemn him. I cannot challenge her to prove her value because chances are that she couldn't care less about her mommy's abortion ethics.

I respect you and I like you very much, Asitis, but I cannot agree with you on this matter, I don't think.

I already did Carla. When it was first posted. I think, whatever the actual circumstances, it's very sad.

I'm sure you don't need my input.

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 7:36 PM

you offered NO input, except a statistical one, which we already knew.

Nevertheless, the video puts a "face" to abortion - it reminds us that these are human beings who are killed. Why won't you watch it?

I know Vannah. And I don't ask you to agree with me. I truly respect how you feel about this.

Thank you very kindly Vannah.

and even if every single person on the face of the earth were on your side of the fence asitis except for me or Carla or that one remaining person, it would still NOT make abortion right?

I think, whatever the actual circumstances, it's very sad.

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 7:41 PM

congratulations! and just as sad if the abortion was done on David at 6 days post-conception or 6 weeks. He would still NOT be here today.

Why won't you watch it?

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 7:42 PM

wrong yet again "Angel"

His name is David. He is a person who died a horribly tragic and painful death.

congratulations! and just as sad if the abortion was done on David at 6 days post-conception or 6 weeks. He would still NOT be here today.

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 7:45 PM

For the record... your words, your view.

wrong yet again "Angel"

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 7:45 PM

no not really! :-D Just glad you have the courage to watch it. You can learn about the "circumstances" by clicking on the link asitis

congratulations! and just as sad if the abortion was done on David at 6 days post-conception or 6 weeks. He would still NOT be here today.

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 7:45 PM

For the record... your words, your view.

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 7:46 PM

really? so you think that if the abortion was done at 6 days, David would NOT be dead.

hmmm, very interesting, but unusual.

you know basic biology proves you WRONG.

But then people who support choice never have been big on biology and scientific facts.
They like to corrupt the facts to fit their ideology.

You can learn about the "circumstances" by clicking on the link asitis

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 7:48 PM

Yeh, you were wrong to say I hadn't watched it. And I already read the details too "Angel". Some of the details are suspect. Not that that matters to you though I'm sure.

congratulations! and just as sad if the abortion was done on David at 6 days post-conception or 6 weeks. He would still NOT be here today.

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 7:45 PM

For the record... your words, your view.

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 7:46 PM

really? so you think that if the abortion was done at 6 days, David would NOT be dead.

hmmm, very interesting, but unusual.

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 7:49 PM

you know basic biology proves you WRONG.

But then people who support choice never have been big on biology and scientific facts.
They like to corrupt the facts to fit their ideology.

Posted by: angel at March 21, 2009 7:51 PM

We;;. guess you missed the "just as sad" part, even though you wrote it.

And I already read the details too "Angel". Some of the details are suspect. Not that that matters to you though I'm sure.

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 7:53 PM

how convenient!
Why did I just KNOW you were going to post that! lol

nevertheless, David dying at 6 days or 6 weeks or 28 weeks makes no difference.
basic biology proves you wrong.
you know this.
you corrupt the facts to fit your "view".
how marvellously convenient!

I've done no such thing "Angel". All I said was that while you feel it is "just as sad if the abortion was done on David at 6 days post-conception or 6 weeks." And I pointed out that while this is your view, it's not everyone's. Surely you know this. Otherwise why would there be restrictions on late term abortions and why would some people be okay with Emergency Contraception and early term abortions, but not later?

"And how convenient!
Why did I just KNOW you were going to post that! lol"

Why? Has this been brought up before by others?

"Did I say I was "fine with that" Carla?"

What are you trying to say here? Are you realizing abortion for the abomination that it is?

Exactly which details are suspect?

No, that's not what I'm trying to say Eileen.

Ask "Angel" what I might have seen as suspect, if it's not apparent to you. She wasn't surprised. You might listen to her ;)

So... if I held up the dismembered arm of an innocent Iraqi child blown to bits in a conflict started by our previous president with some canned choral music in the background, would it get you all just as upset?

That's terrible, Shep. The poor children in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East- I hope that things get better over there. There's so much violence. We as human beings must keep hoping that things get better for people through pacifism, anti-abortion movements, quality education, etc. War is miserable.

But, Mr. Shep, it is important to note that you cannot casually toss around Middle Eastern victims as though they are your tools to attacking just about anyone. Respect goes both ways from Republicans and Democrats- they're not items to be blown up and they're not items to be picked up and shown off so that Democrats might feel good about themselves. They're human beings worth more than you seem to acknowledge and worth more than this nation has given them.

Shep, any innocent victim of war is tragic and upsetting. I never agreed with Bush going into Iraq. Satisfied? Now, do YOU find the dismemberment of the unborn upsetting?

Are you upset about the killing of innocent children in Pakistan since O took office?
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/23/business-as-usual-in-us-drone-attacks-kill-20/

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 8:02 PM

To the extent you're pointing to how others feel, I agree with you. Many remain unmoved. I showed Danielle a picture of David compared to a Nazi photo of chopped apart Jews. She became indignant not about what both photos depicted, but my using them together to illustrate my point. Angel's right- that's deflection of truth. It's a blame shifting technique I call moral illusionism, because it attempts to redirect attention away from the moral principle. (Shep's 11:31 comment illustrates this nicely.)

Your original point seems to be - abortions at earlier gestational ages are less gruesome than older ones, but truth is - the end result is the same - yes?

Our concern is the continual avoidance by abortion-choicers to acknowledge the deliberate, non-accidental acts which terminate human life regardless of age, body size, or physical state of well being.

Intent matters, while age and extent of substance (human flesh) does not.

There is no statute of limitations on murder precisely because of the heinous nature of the crime. Murder is not less of a crime if the victim is younger or smaller - right?

----
Chris, that's an important issue you bring up. 89% of abortions occur prior to 12 weeks.
Posted by: asitis at March 20, 2009 11:41 AM
------

So pointing out younger victims doesn't change the intention of the destructive act.

Death is still the result.

Ask "Angel" what I might have seen as suspect, if it's not apparent to you. She wasn't surprised. You might listen to her ;)

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 10:20 PM

I don't claim to speak for you on this thread asitis. You know this, you're a big girl! ;)(??)
Once again, we see you dodging an explanation of your views after making a suitably vague comment. We are NOT surprised (least of all, Oliver, were he here!).

The fact that another person had to come on the thread and attempt to EXPLAIN your views is pretty darn pathetic, IMO.

again, nice try at deflection, but it didn't work.
*hm, hm, humming softly*

Angel, I really like you. :)

Asitis, you said it was "very sad", the video above. Why is it sad?

Thanks Bethany and belated thanks to Carla too! :)

It's funny isn't it that "Angel" doesn't want to address the suspicions this story raises, and no one else either. I'm new here and I suspect this story isn't so I wonder have these suspicions been raised before? Anyone?

Well, I have to say the first question made we wonder:

Q: What proof do we have that the photograph featured in the “Raise Your Hand” video is real?

A: The proof that the photo is real is that there are existing news stories (e.g., World Net Daily Press ), and SWAT and police files which confirm its authenticity, as well as first-hand testimonies from the people who found the baby and took the photo.

I'm sorry but a "news" stoy from WND written 13 years afterward is the best you can offer? And where are the police and SWAT report? Can those be provided? Was Chad arrested for break and entry and taking something from a medical facility?

again, nice try at deflection, but it didn't work.
*hm, hm, humming softly*

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 8:42 AM

It didn't work? What do you think my comment about the story being suspect was trying to accomplish? Nothing but saying it is suspect. Not much of a mission, but accomplished.

oh, I get it! the pictures fake!

well isn't that a convenient surprise!!
Please, what would it take to convince you that babies die in abortions?

Must we take you down to the clinic and stick your friggin head in a bucket of dead babies? Would that help? Would it?

Asitis, you said it was "very sad", the video above. Why is it sad?

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 8:57 AM

How can it not be sad to anyone Bethany? Supposedly, it's a hand of an almost 7 month fetus. It looks very much like the hand of an infant. I don't think anyone, no matter what their views, can look at that and not say it's s sad. Do you?

oh, I get it! the pictures fake!

well isn't that a convenient surprise!!
Please, what would it take to convince you that babies die in abortions?

Must we take you down to the clinic and stick your friggin head in a bucket of dead babies? Would that help? Would it?

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:16 AM

Don't get your knickers in a knot Angel. I don't know if the photos are fake. But the proof they offer is hardly proof. Same goes for the story behind the photos.

"Supposedly, it's a hand of an almost 7 month fetus. It looks very much like the hand of an infant."

Surprise there! it's the hand of an unborn baby at 7 months, NOT an infant. But of course, unborn babies are not infants, nor are they babies, nor are they human beings. yeah, we get it.
The hand of a 12 week unborn baby still looks very much like that of a 28 week unborn baby. It is recognizably the hand of a human person.

you are woefully uninformed about fetal development.

The hand of a 12 week unborn baby still looks very much like that of a 28 week unborn baby. It is recognizably the hand of a human person.

you are woefully uninformed about fetal development.

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:30 AM

No, actually I'm not "Angel". Recall that I have had two wonderful pregnnacies and births of my own. I followed each step of the way joyously!

What I suggest to you and others, is that if you want to change people mind about aborting at 6 minutes, 6 days, 6 weeks, 12 weeks.... try to use those images to convince them. That's your challenge.

That 3 week old embryo which is killed in an abortion or even the 6 day old embryo which is killed as a result of harvesting its stem cells is just as much a human and a person as the baby who is killed by a D & E at 24 weeks or the baby who is ripped limb from limb at 28 weeks. So if someone sees a 3 week old embryo being torn apart, it's like "so what"? Well it is just as horrible and gruesome and revolting as the dismemberment of the 28 week old.
posted by Bobby Bambino

and it's more a POV as I stated earlier. You looked "forward" to the future of the two babies that you "wanted".
For babies that you don't want (those that don't make it due to the effects of the pill) you look at the past - the fact that they are organzing cells at that stage. You see cells, but we see baby and future. And you dont' care for your babies when they are very early embryos. Very sad.
The hope is to demonstrate the humanity of the unborn at all stages. And BTW, we've used pics at all stages of development for many years now.
It's how people are taught to consider life or death.

"For babies that you don't want (those that don't make it due to the effects of the pill) you look at the past - the fact that they are organzing cells at that stage."

If they even reach that point (it would require breakthrough ovulation and fertilization), more accurately I would be looking at their present, not their past "Angel". Same would be said of a woman taking EC or having an abortion.

The hope is to demonstrate the humanity of the unborn at all stages. And BTW, we've used pics at all stages of development for many years now.
It's how people are taught to consider life or death.

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:55 AMWell,

we've used pics at all stages of development for many years now.

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:55 AMWell,

Has it worked? Why not?

"Angel" you clammed up once I told you what raised my suspicions. Why is this? Has this been discussed here before? Is there good reason to question the validity of the photos and the story?

asitis: some of us go to worship God on Sunday! Chill baby, chill!

There is no reason I can see to dismiss these photos. They are similar in their content to other photos taken of aborted babies of similar age and by the same method.
Thus, I don't see that you've made any valid point at all.
If you believe they are not valid then you need to provide the proof that this is the case. You've given no proof. You've only stated that in your mind, they look fake and you feel the circumstances are fake. Prove it. If you cant' you haven't made your case.

Secondly, these photos and any used in prolife work merely back up the biological and the philosophical reasons against abortion - they reinforce our position - that babies are human beings from the moment of fertilization. As such they should not be killed nor experimented on.

The fact that proaborts such as yourself must corrupt science to support your ideology (for abortion, contraception and experimentation) and must also distort truth (unborn babies are not persons, nor alive) mean that your position is untenable.

Too bad, eh? Science and truth are on our side, not yours. :-)

How can it not be sad to anyone Bethany? Supposedly, it's a hand of an almost 7 month fetus. It looks very much like the hand of an infant. I don't think anyone, no matter what their views, can look at that and not say it's s sad. Do you?

I asked you why you find it sad, Asitis. Do you feel that it is sad when a 7 month old unborn child is aborted, and if so, why?

"If you believe they are not valid then you need to provide the proof that this is the case. You've given no proof. You've only stated that in your mind, they look fake and you feel the circumstances are fake. Prove it. If you cant' you haven't made your case".

"Angel" did I say they "look fake"? No, the reason I am questioning them, and the story, is that the evidence they give for its validity is suspect. It would be prtty hard to prove it's not entirely or at all true, almost 20 years after the fact. Hmmmm.....

Again, have others questioned this before? Am I the only one?

Secondly, these photos and any used in prolife work merely back up the biological and the philosophical reasons against abortion - they reinforce our position - that babies are human beings from the moment of fertilization. As such they should not be killed nor experimented on.

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 12:15 PM

So you think photos of a seven month old fetus are going to convince people that embryos shouldn't be used for stem cell research? Is that what you're saying?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when someone says:

"Q: What proof do we have that the photograph featured in the “Raise Your Hand” video is real?"

Doesn't that imply that the person asking the question is suspecting the photograph is fake?

If not, what in the world does it imply?

Sorry, the above post was by me.

So you think photos of a seven month old fetus are going to convince people that embryos shouldn't be used for stem cell research? Is that what you're saying?
Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 1:07 PM

You are reaching..

Asitis. Do you feel that it is sad when a 7 month old unborn child is aborted, and if so, why?

So you think photos of a seven month old fetus are going to convince people that embryos shouldn't be used for stem cell research? Is that what you're saying?
Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 1:07 PM

You are reaching..

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:11 PM

I'm reaching? Isn't that what "Angel" is saying?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Why aren't you answering my question, by the way?

Asitis. Do you feel that it is sad when a 7 month old unborn child is aborted, and if so, why?

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:12 PM

Sorry Bethany, my younger son and I were out hiking with the dog.....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 28 week abortion would mean that a women's health or life as at risk continuing the pregnancy, does it not? That's very sad in itself. Just imagine. I can't. And beyond that, the image is very sad because, as I sad, it could easily be an infant's hand. I think anyone would feel this way looking at such a photo.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Why aren't you answering my question, by the way?

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:23 PM

Patience Bethany! Some people go to church.... and some people go for a hike! ;)

I did answer your question as you will see. I think we were typing in sync.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 28 week abortion would mean that a women's health or life as at risk continuing the pregnancy, does it not? That's very sad in itself. Just imagine. I can't. And beyond that, the image is very sad because, as I sad, it could easily be an infant's hand. I think anyone would feel this way looking at such a photo.

But it's not an infants hand, Asitis. It is a 7 month fetus's hand.

And Guttmacher (research arm for Planned Parenthood) explains it very well in their statistics, that no, most late term abortions are NOT performed as a result of women's health or life at risk. Here are the stats:
See also: Reasons for abortions.

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

* 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other

Again, WHY is it sad? Just because it COULD have been an infants hand? try again. Why is it sad, Asitis? What makes it sad-- it is a right that (lest you forget) YOU FIGHT FOR. What could possibly be sad about a woman's right to abort for whatever reason she chooses?

By the way, it wasn't a hand. It was a choice.
Remember?

There's nothing sad about a non person's hand.
I dont get sad when I see a mannequin's hand torn from it's body.

"And Guttmacher (research arm for Planned Parenthood) explains it very well in their statistics, that no, most late term abortions are NOT performed as a result of women's health or life at risk. Here are the stats:"

Bethany, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't late term abortions considered to be sometime after viability, not after 16 weeks as you have presented reasons for. What are the reasons for that after say 23 or 24 weeks? Aren't those restricted to when the woman's health or life are in danger? I'd say that's hardly much of a choice for the woman ,and a very sad one.

asitis,
it is very revealing that you are continually dodging questions. You have implied that you think that the video is sad. It concerns abortion -- you support abortion yet you think that the video is sad. If you support abortion then why are you saddened by the video? I think that you are afraid to think more deeply on the issue and confront it for what it really is.
I really don't understand how women who have given birth and love their children can support abortion which is what they are doing when they say that they support a woman's right to choose. Abortion is oftentimes that "choice". It is very disturbing to think that the children of those women, had their lives hanging in the balance, while their mothers decided that they were worthy of life. Had it been an inconvenience, they very easily would not be alive today.

I know you can't understand it Eileen.

Christina:

That testimony of Carhart is like reading the transcripts of Nazi Nuremburg trials.

Anyone involved with abortion is an animal worthy of death.

Asitis, do your children know you would have aborted them if situations had been hard for you?
Do they find that "sad"?

Bethany, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't late term abortions considered to be sometime after viability, not after 16 weeks as you have presented reasons for. What are the reasons for that after say 23 or 24 weeks? Aren't those restricted to when the woman's health or life are in danger? I'd say that's hardly much of a choice for the woman ,and a very sad one.

What a total cop-out.
The study said 16 weeks OR MORE, by the way.

There you go again, asitis -- being evasive. Deep down you know that abortion is a heinous thing.

Asitis, is it "sad" when a mother aborts a 23 week old unborn child for reasons of convenience? Or say, because she wants to go to a rock concert and wants to be able to fit into that outfit she wants to wear?

I agree, eileen. I know she knows it.

Hisman,
All of our sins are worthy of death so we need to pray for conversions (ourselves too). :)

What a total cop-out.
The study said 16 weeks OR MORE, by the way.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:45 PM

Not a cop-out at all Bethany. You gave that as reason why women have late term abortions. It's not accurate. Why do women have late-term abortions Bethany? What are the conditions under which an abortion at 28 weeks would be allowed?

Not a cop-out at all Bethany. You gave that as reason why women have late term abortions. It's not accurate. Why do women have late-term abortions Bethany? What are the conditions under which an abortion at 28 weeks would be allowed?

Never. However, if a mother's life is genuinely threatened by continuing the pregnancy, life saving procedures should be allowed, even if by doing so the unborn child may die as a result- the doctor should consider that he has two patients, and do what he can to save both. If only the mother can be saved, the loss of the unborn child should be looked at as regrettable outcome and NOT the intended result. And that is the opposite of abortion.

There you go again, asitis -- being evasive. Deep down you know that abortion is a heinous thing.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at March 22, 2009 1:45 PM

Evasive? How so Eileen? I think I'm being pretty good, especially with HisMan lurking around, ready to thow some fire and brimstone at me.

Evasive? How so Eileen? I think I'm being pretty good, especially with HisMan lurking around, ready to thow some fire and brimstone at me.

As in, not genuinely answering the question. Continually dodging it because it is a difficult question to answer honestly considering your position on abortion.

Not a cop-out at all Bethany. You gave that as reason why women have late term abortions. It's not accurate. Why do women have late-term abortions Bethany? What are the conditions under which an abortion at 28 weeks would be allowed?

Never. However, if a mother's life is genuinely threatened by continuing the pregnancy, life saving procedures should be allowed, even if by doing so the unborn child may die as a result- the doctor should consider that he has two patients, and do what he can to save both. If only the mother can be saved, the loss of the unborn child should be looked at as regrettable outcome and NOT the intended result. And that is the opposite of abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:50 PM

I wasn't asking when YOU think it should be allowed (never). I was asking what are the conditions under which an abortion would be allowed at 28 weeks?

By the way, Asitis:

Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, a "trade association" for abortion clinics, was quoted as saying:

There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc." [emphasis added]

Oh and there's more:

Likewise, a June 12, 1995, National Abortion Federation letter to members of the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are sought by, among others, "very young teenagers...who have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too late," and by "women in poverty, who have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face insurmountable financial barriers."

In her article about late-term abortions, based in part on extensive interviews with Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice (Los Angeles Times Magazine, January 7, 1990), reporter Karen Tumulty concluded:

If there is any other single factor that inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they can.

According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas:

About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star]

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/pbafact9.html

I wasn't asking when YOU think it should be allowed (never). I was asking what are the conditions under which an abortion would be allowed at 28 weeks?

There are none, I already answered you. I explained the difference between abortion and life saving procedures, Asitis.

As in, not genuinely answering the question. Continually dodging it because it is a difficult question to answer honestly considering your position on abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:51 PM

Oh I'm being genuine alright.Even if you don't like my answers.

I wasn't asking when YOU think it should be allowed (never). I was asking what are the conditions under which an abortion would be allowed at 28 weeks?

There are none, I already answered you. I explained the difference between abortion and life saving procedures, Asitis.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:55 PM

So you are saying abortion is illegal in all states at 28 weeks?

I am going to do some research to substantiate this but I attended a talk by Dr. Byron Calhoun, a peri-neonatologist (sp?) who said that there is no research that supports abortion for reasons of health (exceptions for ectopic pregnancies which have no chance of surviving). That is so overused.

I was told to abort my anencephalic baby by a specialist for reasons of health (emotional included) But the doctor also stated that my obstetrician would monitor my health very closely. (I told him that it would be better for my emotional health if I did NOT abort my baby.) With the medicine and technology today, there is no reason why women with risky pregnancies can not be monitored closely.

Oh I'm being genuine alright.Even if you don't like my answers.

No, you didn't answer WHY the baby's hand in the video was sad.

You answered why it is sad IF it might have been an infants hand.
You answered why it was sad that a woman might have decided to do it.
You answered that other people might think it is sad.

but you did not answer why you think that the 7 month fetus's hand, itself, is sad?

So you are saying abortion is illegal in all states at 28 weeks?

No, you didn't make it clear that you were speaking of the legality of abortion.

Abortion is currently legal until full term, Asitis.

I should clarify -- he said that there is no research to substantiate that it is better for a woman's health to abort a baby that has a terminal diagnosis (birth defect).

And there are loopholes which allow them to be aborted for reasons of "mental distress", etc.

Exactly, Bethany. Mental distress is very loosely defined!

Bethany @1:54pm

When you say "late-term" abortion, what exactly do you mean? I though it means after vialbility and there are specific retrictions in place for this. But it seems you are referring to before vialbility when those restrictions don't apply.

Can you please clear this up for me? What do you mean by _late-term?

Bethany @1:57

Those are my reasons why it is sad. Perhaps you are looking for something else?

Why are you asking me? Why not ask the Spokeswoman for Tiller? Or the National Abortion Federation, from which the quotes about late term abortions came from? I think you know what THEY mean by it.

So you are saying abortion is illegal in all states at 28 weeks?

No, you didn't make it clear that you were speaking of the legality of abortion.

Abortion is currently legal until full term, Asitis.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:59 PM

Well we were Bethany ( or I was anyway), in that for this abortion to occur at 28 weeks it must have meant that the women's health or life were at risk.It would not have been much of a choice for her.

Well we were Bethany ( or I was anyway), in that for this abortion to occur at 28 weeks it must have meant that the women's health or life were at risk.It would not have been much of a choice for her.

That is not true, Asitis.

I've got to run now but I'll find some stats to show you when I have time. The majority of post-viable abortions are not done as a result of woman's health or life. That is a terrible, terrible lie promoted by the abortion industry, and you may just not be aware of it yet. You still haven't answered why it would be sad for a woman to abort late term if she had no health or life problems? See ya.

asitis,
my sister had a high-risk pregnancy -- both her life and the baby's life were at risk so the specialists put her on bed-rest in the hospital and then when the baby appeared to be in distress they performed a c-section. There is no reason to abort, especially a late term pregnancy when a c-section can be done to save both lives.

Asitis, do your children know you would have aborted them if situations had been hard for you?
Do they find that "sad"?
Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:44 PM

Sorry I just saw this one.

We haven't actually had any discussions on abortion. But I don't think the fact that I am pro-choice will make them sad nor question how much they are valued, loved and wanted.

You still haven't answered why it would be sad for a woman to abort late term if she had no health or life problems? See ya.
Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 2:11 PM

That's because it's my understanding that she would have to in order to abort at 8 weeks.

asitis,
my sister had a high-risk pregnancy -- both her life and the baby's life were at risk so the specialists put her on bed-rest in the hospital and then when the baby appeared to be in distress they performed a c-section. There is no reason to abort, especially a late term pregnancy when a c-section can be done to save both lives.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at March 22, 2009 2:15 PM

I'm glad to hear your sister and baby were fine Eileen! But there must be cases where this cannot be done without risking the women's life then.

That's because it's my understanding that she would have to in order to abort at 8 weeks.

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 2:19 PM

Sorry... obviously I meant 28 weeks.

Actually, asitis, it does occur to children that they are alive only because they are wanted -- it would mean more if they were "welcomed" by their parents in spite of circumstances.

asitis,
then it comes down to this -- LOVE.
"There is no greater love than this -- to lay down one's life for one's friend."

I'm no angel but had it been my life or my baby's and I am safe in stating the same for my sister -- it would be my baby's life that I would have wanted to save.

My point also though, was that many abortions are done unnecessarily under the guise of the mother's health. This is overused.

Actually, asitis, it does occur to children that they are alive only because they are wanted -- it would mean more if they were "welcomed" by their parents in spite of circumstances.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at March 22, 2009 2:24 PM

Well, sure that's one way of looking at it. And it also eases their concerns that they weren't wanted when it was unplanned.

But it can also mean more to children that they were wanted and planned for.

I think however children come to be a part of your family....whether it's unintended pregnancy, intended pregnancy, IVF, fertility drugs, adoption...... they know they were wanted by how you love and parent them!

Darn, I have to go! Carry on :)

I have to go too. Number One son wants me to watch a show with him and the dog also needs a bath.

So you think photos of a seven month old fetus are going to convince people that embryos shouldn't be used for stem cell research? Is that what you're saying?

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 1:07 PM

they may convince some as to the humanity of the unborn baby, absolutely yes! Even if one, then yes, it is worth it. And they may come to realize in the process that escr is experimentation on human beings - very tiny humans! And that's good too!

you've still provided no proof as to why the fotos are fake. Once again that is your opinion stated without any supporting evidence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 28 week abortion would mean that a women's health or life as at risk continuing the pregnancy, does it not?

ok, I'm correcting you. NO IT DOES NOT! Many women have abortions at 28 weeks because they delayed tooo long, and some because the baby has an abnormality. You don't abort a pregnancy at 28 weeks because of health risk to the mother - the baby would be delivered via c-section. Come on here. Use your brain!

Bethany, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't late term abortions considered to be sometime after viability, not after 16 weeks as you have presented reasons for. What are the reasons for that after say 23 or 24 weeks? Aren't those restricted to when the woman's health or life are in danger? I'd say that's hardly much of a choice for the woman ,and a very sad one.

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 1:38 PM

she just proved you wrong earlier, you nincompoop! sheesh!

Not a cop-out at all Bethany. You gave that as reason why women have late term abortions. It's not accurate. Why do women have late-term abortions Bethany? What are the conditions under which an abortion at 28 weeks would be allowed?

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 1:48 PM

ok so once Bethany posted stats from a PROABORT organization which substantiate her position you go an tell her they are inaccurate.
What is the point of debating you when you refuse to accept anything other than what you can produce. You are the most close-minded individual I've ever met! Amazing!

Why are the photos fake asitis? Prove they are!

Why do you believe that an abortion at 6 weeks, or 8 weeks or 10 weeks is fine but one at 28 weeks is sad? Why is a baby at 6 weeks somehow less in your mind than one at 28 weeks?

"you've still provided no proof as to why the fotos are fake. Once again that is your opinion stated without any supporting evidence".

I don't need to provide evidence that they are fake "Angel". I didn't claim that they were. I said that the evidence they give for their validity and the story about them is suspect. And I showed you why already.

Has this been discussed before "Angel"? No one seems to want to answer that question.

Asitis:So you think photos of a seven month old fetus are going to convince people that embryos shouldn't be used for stem cell research? Is that what you're saying?

"Angel": they may convince some as to the humanity of the unborn baby, absolutely yes! Even if one, then yes, it is worth it. And they may come to realize in the process that escr is experimentation on human beings - very tiny humans! And that's good too!

Really? You think they will? I think people will look at them and say "well, that's not an embryo".

Asitis: Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 28 week abortion would mean that a women's health or life as at risk continuing the pregnancy, does it not?

"Angel": ok, I'm correcting you. NO IT DOES NOT! Many women have abortions at 28 weeks because they delayed tooo long, and some because the baby has an abnormality. You don't abort a pregnancy at 28 weeks because of health risk to the mother - the baby would be delivered via c-section. Come on here. Use your brain!

Really? "You don't"? But isn't that the law in the US?

Bethany, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't late term abortions considered to be sometime after viability, not after 16 weeks as you have presented reasons for. What are the reasons for that after say 23 or 24 weeks? Aren't those restricted to when the woman's health or life are in danger? I'd say that's hardly much of a choice for the woman ,and a very sad one.

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 1:38 PM

"Angel":she just proved you wrong earlier, you nincompoop! sheesh!

Nincompoop? That's kind of like idiot, right?

No, she didn't prove me wrong "Angel". She gave me reasons and statistice for why women abort after 16 weeks.

Are you trying to Say that late-term abortion DOES mean after 16 weeks? Because I thought it meant after viability. And in the US there are restrictions placed on these abosrtions that do not apply at 16 weeks.

"Angel" ok so once Bethany posted stats from a PROABORT organization which substantiate her position you go an tell her they are inaccurate.
What is the point of debating you when you refuse to accept anything other than what you can produce. You are the most close-minded individual I've ever met! Amazing!

Close-minded? Me? Coming from you? That's a good one "Angel". Thanks for the laugh!

Oh "Angel". I wasn't refusing to accept Guttmacher's stats. Not at all. I pointed out to Bethany that they included more than late-term abortions, as I understand "late term" to mean. I guessed you missed that part.

"Angel" it's like shooting fish in a barrell!

I'm going to bathe the dog. But I'll be back!

Some thoughts from Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments by Randy Alcorn

What is hideous is not the pictures themselves, but the reality they depict. Pictures of aborted babies were not invented by prolifers. The pictures are authentic. What people object to is their content.
What is it that makes a picture beautiful or hideous? Not the picture itself but what is IN the picture.

"Why would anyone defend as legitimate what is shown in these pictures?"

Pictures challenge our denial of the horrors of abortion. If something is too horrible to look at, perhaps it is too horrible to condone.

What could be more relevant to a discussion about abortion than that which shows what it really is??

What could be more relevant to a discussion about abortion than that which shows what it really is??

Posted by: Carla at March 22, 2009 4:28 PM

I agree. So if you are talking about abortion at 2 weeks, show that. 6 weeks? Show that. 8 weeks? Show that.......

Really? "You don't"? But isn't that the law in the US?

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 3:50 PM

my point WAS: doctors do not abort a pregnancy at 28 weeks for true health reasons
this is not accepted medical protocol

a woman in a serious health situation would not be admitted to hospital for an abortion when she is carrying a baby that is capable of surviving outside the womb. (honestly, you MUST be stupid)

abortions may be cited as being done for the "health" of the mother but in reality, in true situations such as pre-eclampsia and so forth, abortion is NOT the medical treatment
c-section or induced labor is the treatment if medication and bedrest fail

abortions are done at 28 weeks due to fetal abnormality (not a valid reason either) or because of personal reasons (fear of labor, telling partner, parents, failure to seek an earlier abortion etc. also not a valid reason for killing your baby)

your questioning of the validity of the pictures and their source implies beyond a doubt that you believe the pictures are fake.
I am not the only one who came to this conclusion asitis.
And yes, from my experience, showing pictures of aborted babies does change peoples minds about what happens during abortion.
It doesn't touch hardened hearts like yours (who may be post-abortive) but it does touch those who are open to discovering the truth.

maybe your dog could comment on here for you and give you a break: I'm sure he/she would have more intelligent arguments :-P

until you are willing to produce proof that the pictures are fake, I'm finished arguing with you.
You've not supported your arguments - you've once again only stated your opinion.

I would submit that showing pictures at 6 days or 14 days is simply not relevant to the prolife discussion of escr.
The reason pictures of fetal development were initially shown was because abortionists and proaborts were telling women that at 8 weeks they were carrying a blob of cells. They lied and we knew it! We proved them wrong with pictures. The unborn baby is NOT a blob of cells at 8 weeks. Nor is it a blob of cells at 4 weeks! Any woman who has miscarried early on in pregnancy KNOWS this fact. Often they've held their babies in palm of their hand, sometimes even watching as their little hearts slowed and stopped.

Then pictures were shown of babies who had undergone suction abortions, saline abortions, d & e extractions and now partial birth abortions. We need to see those pictures because there are many women who have abortions like these. They are never shown what their baby looked like. Why? Because proaborts don't want them to know what died ( a human baby) and because they don't want the world to know. If nothing important died, why the lies, why the secrecy, why so afraid to show abortion for what it is?

The arguments for escr are very different. We all know we are talking about very early human babies that have two, three,.. 16 cells. The base of the argument is not to show a cuddly baby, which people can relate to. The baby at this stage is not cuddly and cooing. He/she is a very early developing human being, initiating control of it's development, but nonetheless a unique, irreplaceable human being. The arguments are based on biology, ethics and philosophy and require more finesse.

But I think, asitis, you know this. So your question was dishonest, not surprisingly!

"abortions are done at 28 weeks due to fetal abnormality (not a valid reason either) or because of personal reasons (fear of labor, telling partner, parents, failure to seek an earlier abortion etc. also not a valid reason for killing your baby)"

Really "Angel"? Is this why they are done? Isn't this illegal? How do you know this? How do they get away with this?

"your questioning of the validity of the pictures and their source implies beyond a doubt that you believe the pictures are fake.
I am not the only one who came to this conclusion asitis".

Reall "Angel"? It implies beyond any doubt that i belive they are fake????? No, it actually menas that I suspect they might be. And I suspect, more so, that the details of the story may not be true. But of course, I don't know for sure either way. But the evidence they give for their validity is weak. It's basically their word.

"Angel": I am not the only one who came to this conclusion asitis.

Are you referring to Bethany's comment. Oh hahahahahahah! Did you not realize she was basing that "conclusion" on a questions she mistakenly attributed to me? The question (and answer)actually came straight off the priests for life site. So does that mean Bethany thainks THEY think the photos are fake? Ha Ha! No probably not. But I think it might mean that people have either suggested this or proven this or they at least think people will.

Have they "Angel"? No one will answer that? Is it just me? Oh... actually I guess likely not since the priests brought it up themselves.

Here's that exchange with Bethany. You might want to read it again:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when someone says:

"Q: What proof do we have that the photograph featured in the “Raise Your Hand” video is real?"

Doesn't that imply that the person asking the question is suspecting the photograph is fake?

If not, what in the world does it imply?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2009 1:09 PM

maybe your dog could comment on here for you and give you a break: I'm sure he/she would have more intelligent arguments :-P

until you are willing to produce proof that the pictures are fake, I'm finished arguing with you.
You've not supported your arguments - you've once again only stated your opinion.

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 4:50 PM

He is pretty smart for a dog! You have a problem with the fact that I have a dog, in addition to athletic sons, "Angel"?

But back to the pictures and the story. As I have said oh, what? several times already.... I don't need to prove that they are fake. I just need to say why they are suspect. Which I have already done. I don't know whether they are fake or not.

But I think, asitis, you know this. So your question was dishonest, not surprisingly!

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 5:20 PM

Really? Because I was asking you based on something you said. Nothing dishonest about that.

Here, let me remind you. You mentioned use of the photos in conjuction with "from moment of fertilization" and "experimented on". It sure sounded to me that you were referring to stem cell research:

Secondly, these photos and any used in prolife work merely back up the biological and the philosophical reasons against abortion - they reinforce our position - that babies are human beings from the moment of fertilization. As such they should not be killed nor experimented on.

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 12:15 PM

and I don't even OWN a gun!

"He is pretty smart for a dog! You have a problem with the fact that I have a dog, in addition to athletic sons, "Angel"?"

you are weird, I hope you know that.

I was not referring to Bethany but to others who commented on the thread.

you are post-abortive, hon.
you need help, seriously.
have fun talking to yourself! :(

any thoughts of intelligent discussion just vaporized with your last 3 comments.....
I'm here for intelligent discourse
you have none to offer.

I was not referring to Bethany but to others who commented on the thread.

you are post-abortive, hon.
you need help, seriously.
have fun talking to yourself! :(

Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2009 5:58 PM

Anonymous? You going underground again "Angel"? Dang!

Can you show me these others who "came to that conclusion" then if you didn't mean Behany's comment???????? Because I must have missed them.

Post- abortive? No "Angel". I reminded you just yesterday, I've never had a abortion. Just two wonderful pregnancies ending in the births of my two beloved boys!

any thoughts of intelligent discussion just vaporized with your last 3 comments.....
I'm here for intelligent discourse
you have none to offer.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2009 5:59 PM

Why is that? Because you can't keep up? C'mon "Angel" I shut you down on all your silly refutes! Not bad for a .. what was it?... nincompoop!

Like I said, asitis, I'm here for intelligent discourse
you have none to offer.
and I note that everyone else has left you to yourself too!
in case you haven't yet figured it out, people like to discuss things but since you cant and won't back up your assertions and simply attack people, they leave.

see ya 'round....

Hey Angel, I just did a review of the comments since my one last night at 7:58 when I said :

"Yeh, you were wrong to say I hadn't watched it. And I already read the details too "Angel". Some of the details are suspect."

and I can't find anyone other than Bethany who concluded that I believe the pictures are fake. So if not Bethany's, whose comment were you referring to when you said:

"your questioning of the validity of the pictures and their source implies beyond a doubt that you believe the pictures are fake.
I am not the only one who came to this conclusion asitis".

????

.

Posted by: asitis at March 21, 2009 7:53 PM

Like I said, asitis, I'm here for intelligent discourse
you have none to offer.
and I note that everyone else has left you to yourself too!
in case you haven't yet figured it out, people like to discuss things but since you cant and won't back up your assertions and simply attack people, they leave.

see ya 'round....

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 6:15 PM

Attack people??? Won't back up assertions??? Hello? That would be you that was just corrected repeatedly. Again. And you were oh so pleasant when you made your erroneaous statements too! Haha! It's been fun! Thanks.

asitis,
my sister had a high-risk pregnancy -- both her life and the baby's life were at risk so the specialists put her on bed-rest in the hospital and then when the baby appeared to be in distress they performed a c-section. There is no reason to abort, especially a late term pregnancy when a c-section can be done to save both lives.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at March 22, 2009 2:15 PM

I'm glad to hear your sister and baby were fine Eileen! But there must be cases where this cannot be done without risking the women's life then.
--------------------------------------------------

Why MUST there be? Because you say so? Not good enough.

The fact is that it may not always have the desired result, because the monitoring may show that, in case of eclampsia or HELLP syndrome or other issues, that the birth must happen prior to that particular baby surviving, the ability to watch and wait is available. The moms I worked with in antepartum were generally not wealthy (we did have a couple who were), most were on AHCCCS (Arizona's form of Medicaid), and we monitored the situations carefully to protect the mother's health while working to save the child's life as well.

Once again you speculate with no actual medical experience or knowledge to back up your suppositions.

No it's true Elisabeth, I have no medical experience or knowledge of what ACTUALLY happens. I think what you offer in that regards is valuable.

The only reason I say there must be cases where this cannot be done without risking the women's health is that is because third trimester abortions do happen and isn't this the only reason they are allowed? Do you think all of those cases could be handled by c-section and watching and waiting? I don't know. But I'm thinking not. Otherwise, why would they have such allowance in place?

Asitis, if you don't believe your own side, who will you believe? I already posted this:

By the way, Asitis:

Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, a "trade association" for abortion clinics, was quoted as saying:

There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc." [emphasis added]

Likewise, a June 12, 1995, National Abortion Federation letter to members of the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are sought by, among others, "very young teenagers...who have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too late," and by "women in poverty, who have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face insurmountable financial barriers."

According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas:

About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it [Kansas City Star]

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/pbafact9.html
Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 1:54 PM

Arg. For some reason my computer isn't remembering me when I post, so I have to enter my name every time. That was me @7:43

Thanks Bethany. And as I already said, I am not refuting what they are saying. I am just saying that what they are referring to there are abortions after 16 weeks. If those can be called "late-term abortions" then it seems to me that terminology is not clear. Is it?

In any case what we are talking about is a 28 week old fetus. And there are restrictions on abortions performed in the third trimester are there not? And they do not include the reasons cited above that are included in abortions after 16 weeks. Correct?

Thanks Bethany. And as I already said, I am not refuting what they are saying. I am just saying that what they are referring to there are abortions after 16 weeks. If those can be called "late-term abortions" then it seems to me that terminology is not clear. Is it?

No, Asitis. It is not unclear. When your pro-abortion buddies call it "late term" they are referring to abortions past 20 weeks. The study by Guttmacher did not say the words "late term" even once, even though it obviously included some, as it was 16 weeks AND OVER (which means there were some included which were over 20 weeks I'm sure).

In any case what we are talking about is a 28 week old fetus. And there are restrictions on abortions performed in the third trimester are there not?

No, Asitis. That's what I've been trying to tell you but it doesn't seem to be getting through. Anyone can have an abortion for ANY reason up to the point of birth and be doing something completely legal.

I mean, there are "restrictions" but not anything that is not vaguely worded enough to loophole their way out of. And they do it often- Tiller brags about how he gives women abortions the day before they're due. How can you ignore that?

Hey, Asitis, do you think this is sad?

What about this?

Or even this?

Yes. ALL of those cases could be handled by either c-section or watching and waiting. The fact is that late term abortions involve the woman giving birth. Therefore, if it were truly hazardous for the woman to give birth (either through c-section or vaginally) then it is equally hazardous for that woman to undergo a late term abortion.

There is NO medical justification whatsoever for late term abortions in regards to the mother's health. Like I said, due to HELLP or eclampsia, induction of labor or a csection may need to take place prior to that individual baby being ready to survive, and those cases are very sad... but that is not an abortion... the aim is not to kill the child. Those children are given full medical attention, a name, a birth certificate, and a death certificate.

They have such an allowance in place because people are barbaric and they want what they want. Those cases are not about women's health. They are about abortion at any cost.

Late term abortions are performed, almost overwhelmingly for "psychosocial" reasons or because the child is found to be imperfect.

Here is an interesting article that is pro-late term abortion rights. http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

First of all, it rightly notes that this is a small percentage of abortions. Of course, that is because such a horrific number of abortions are performed early so as to make the numbers, in comparison, small. But honestly, even if the number were smaller it wouldn't change the medical facts that this is not about the woman's health, so we'll leave that aside for the moment, shall we?

Here is a telling quote:
"Most women who terminate their pregnancies after 20 weeks wanted to have a child, and were forced to consider abortion for medical reasons. Other women may be in desperate social circumstances, such as an abusive relationship, or they may be very young teenagers who have delayed abortion care because they were in denial about the pregnancy."

So, let's say that the appropriate response to a woman aborting because of an abusive relationship societally speaking is to help her out of the abusive relationship and provide for her while she gets on her feet. (That isn't a medical reason anyway). Let's say that the appropriate response to teenage denial is greater education... once again, still not a medical reason.

So what are these "medical" reasons?

The medical reasons for ending a pregnancy, in terms of the mother's health, are those conditions for which birth is the only known cure. Those conditions are the same ones I already listed, eclampsia and HELLP syndrome. http://www.hellpsyndrome.org/templates/System/default.asp?id=40426

These are very serious conditions and the mother's progress must be very carefully tracked, as an inpatient once the symptoms get beyond pre-eclampsia (or before if the caregiver is vigilant). The mother's condition is monitored with lab tests and frequent vital signs. The baby's condition is monitered with frequent doppler checks, fetal monitoring such as occurs during labor, and ultrasound. The medical professionals involved work very, very hard to get the baby to its greatest possible level of development and provide treatment to speed fetal lung development.

When the mother's condition requires, c-section is performed and the child is handed over to a team of neonatal specialists who provide further treatment to assist the child while the mother is cared for by the high-risk obstetrical team. Once the baby is born, the mother's condition is able to stabilize (and any decent high risk OB doesn't let it get to a true danger point, anyway.) Does the baby always survive? Of course not. Full term, apparently healthy babies in normal deliveries don't always survive, either. The difference is that in this case the baby has been given every opportunity to survive, his death was not the goal.

As for medical reasons on behalf of the baby... well, those are the parents who find out their baby isn't perfect and so choose to abort rather than open their hearts to their less than perfect blessing. For each woman who views that child as not worth whatever amount of life it may naturally have, there are other mothers who choose to give birth, either vaginally or through c-section, to a child with the same issues and care for that child to the best of their abilities for whatever length of life that child may have.

Children with anencephaly are aborted. Children with anencephaly are also given a c-section birth and allowed to survive whether it is for minutes, hours or days. Children with Down Syndrome are aborted at a very high rate, despite the fact that they have excellent chances for a healthy, happy life. Children with trisomy 18 are aborted... and children with trisomy 18 are given the chance for life. The list goes on...

I have my diagnostic ultrasound on April 9th. I am, of course, planning on finding out nothing more than that I have a healthy baby and whether it is a boy or a girl. I will be 18, almost 19 weeks pregnant. I'll admit, I'm getting older (37) and I'm aware of the risks. I may find out something is "wrong" with my child and, were I not prolife, I would be faced with the decision... late term abortion (because it would likely be 20 weeks before anything could be handled, or close enough to it) or carry the pregnancy knowing that I will either face life long care of a child who may never live independently or carry to term a child who may only be in my arms a few moments or hours.

I am very glad that I do not have to make that decision... there is no decision to make. Whatever the outcome, this is my child whom I love dearly and I will do whatever I can to ensure a healthy (for him or her) delivery, even that means having a c-section that is medically necessary for the baby, but not for me, and going through that healing process with potentially empty arms going home from the hospital. I owe that, not only to the child I am carrying, but to my other six children to whom I would be doing the gravest of disservices to not love their sibling in this way... for I would be telling them that they were granted life because, by chance, there was nothing demonstrably "wrong" with them during the pregnancy.

No, Asitis. It is not unclear. When your pro-abortion buddies call it "late term" they are referring to abortions past 20 weeks. The study by Guttmacher did not say the words "late term" even once, even though it obviously included some, as it was 16 weeks AND OVER (which means there were some included which were over 20 weeks I'm sure).

Posted by: Anonymous (Bethany) at March 22, 2009 8:10 PM

Bethany the Guttmacher piece is referring to abortions after 16 weeks which would include some before what I think of as "late-term" (post viability. The excerpt from NRLC is also based on that time frame : If you go to the link you'll see they open with the Guttmacher reference about abortions done after 16 weeks.

The reason I say it's unclear is that you or others seem to be referring to late-term as 16 weeks and over (or what?) and others refer to it as third trimester or as post-viability.

Does it have a clear definition? It doesn't seem to.

No, Asitis. That's what I've been trying to tell you but it doesn't seem to be getting through. Anyone can have an abortion for ANY reason up to the point of birth and be doing something completely legal.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 8:11 PM

Really? You are saying there are no restrictionsin the US on abortion after viability??????

Sadly, Asitis, while you may have to look around for a provider willing to do it, that is the case. Abortion is legal through all three trimesters. That's what we've been trying to tell you.

Elisabeth, have you seen this wonderful site by a woman who chose to carry her anancephalic baby girl (Faith Hope- what a perfect name) to term?

Shes has lived for 30 days so far! It is unheard of with anancephalic babies, who usually live only a day or maybe at the most, a week with that condition.

What's even more amazing is to see that this baby can react to noise...can smile, can sit up... All things that she wasn't "supposed " to be able to do.
http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

(Lauren first posted about it a week or so ago.)

I have been following Faith Hope's story with a lot of interest. Amazing how wrong doctors can be, and what a beautiful blessing EVERY baby is, no matter what!

I am so thankful that Faith's mother decided to show her beautiful life to others and encourage others that a diagnosis like this is not the end of the world, and that every moment counts!

Asitis, what Elisabeth said @ 8:30.

The reason I say it's unclear is that you or others seem to be referring to late-term as 16 weeks and over (or what?) and others refer to it as third trimester or as post-viability.
Does it have a clear definition? It doesn't seem to.

You're being purposely obtuse.

The reason I say it's unclear is that you or others seem to be referring to late-term as 16 weeks and over (or what?) and others refer to it as third trimester or as post-viability.

What do YOU think that NARAL means when THEY say "Late Term", Asitis?

Be honest.

Yes, Bethany, I have been following that blog, among others... there are many women out there choosing life... however brief it may be. May God be praised, there are those whose hearts are not yet hard.

The pictures at 8:18 PM, 8:19PM, 8:20PM..

Asitis, are those sad?

Elisabeth , that article about late-term abortions in Canada is very interesting. Abortions after 20 weeks are rare and, although unregulated, the reason for having them are as per US regulations..

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

Do you have anything on the US?

Sadly, Asitis, while you may have to look around for a provider willing to do it, that is the case. Abortion is legal through all three trimesters. That's what we've been trying to tell you.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 22, 2009 8:30 PM

I know it is legal (in all states?) but there are restrictions on abortion after viability, is there not?

Asitis, right now I'll leave hunting down the regulations to someone else. My expertise is in the medical field.

I would hope at this point the idea of late term abortion as a necessary medical procedure has been shown to be the lie that it is.

I know it is legal (in all states?) but there are restrictions on abortion after viability, is there not?

What in the world is your point, Asitis? We have explained to you time and time again that while there are restrictions (why do we have to continue repeating it? Are you hard of "hearing"?), they are vaguely worded and the loopholes are easy to get through! Women have abortions for "mental distress" all of the time.

That should read, Women have late term abortions for "mental distress" all of the time.

And yes, that is past the 20 week line.

Dear Lord, please give asitis eyes to see and ears to hear and soften her hardened heart. Amen.

Asitis, my pictures at 8:18, 8:19, and 8:20. Are those sad?

Carla, amen.

The reason I say it's unclear is that you or others seem to be referring to late-term as 16 weeks and over (or what?) and others refer to it as third trimester or as post-viability.
Does it have a clear definition? It doesn't seem to.

You're being purposely obtuse.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 8:32 PM

Quite honestly I am not Bethany. This all began with me saying that if a woman had an abortion late term (in this case 28 weeks) her health or life would have had to have been in danger. In which case you said no, women have late-term
abortions for all kinds of reasons and went on to give data for 16 weeks and over. I then said that I did not mean 16 weeks when I said late-term. It was my understanding that late term meant third trimester or post viability.

What does late term mean Bethany? Does it mean anything? Or is the proper term, when referring to restrictions on later abortion, "post-viability"?

Per my 8:34 PM post, that should read NAF (National Abortion Federation), not NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League). Same question, same difference.

Are those photos sad? It depends on who is looking at them. I know they break your heart. I know they break Carla's. Why do you care what I think? So you can say I am evil? So Jasper can say Satan is speaking through me? So Oliver can say I'm inconsistent?

Quite honestly I am not Bethany. This all began with me saying that if a woman had an abortion late term (in this case 28 weeks) her health or life would have had to have been in danger. In which case you said no, women have late-term
abortions for all kinds of reasons and went on to give data for 16 weeks and over. I then said that I did not mean 16 weeks when I said late-term. It was my understanding that late term meant third trimester or post viability.

That was what *I* said, not what Guttmacher said, Asitis. I'm sure you can tell the difference between me and Guttmacher. However, the Guttmacher says 16 weeks AND UP, which means that there were in reality LATE TERM babies that had been aborted in this study. How can this not sink in by now? Is this really such a mystery to you? If you buy a toy for your child that says, "Ages 3 and up", do you automatically assume it means ONLY 3 year olds can play with it? Of course not. You know that the "AND UP" means that there are OTHER AGES included.

What does late term mean Bethany? Does it mean anything? Or is the proper term, when referring to restrictions on later abortion, "post-viability"?

It means after 20 weeks or later. Look it up in the dictionary.

The reason I say it's unclear is that you or others seem to be referring to late-term as 16 weeks and over (or what?) and others refer to it as third trimester or as post-viability.

What do YOU think that NARAL means when THEY say "Late Term", Asitis?

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 8:34 PM

I don't know. But is it a politically-charged word? Why? I thought it was used, in the sense I was using it, an abortion done after viability, and inasmuch was restricted. I had no idea this was some kind of issue.

I know it is legal (in all states?) but there are restrictions on abortion after viability, is there not?

What in the world is your point, Asitis? We have explained to you time and time again that while there are restrictions (why do we have to continue repeating it? Are you hard of "hearing"?), they are vaguely worded and the loopholes are easy to get through! Women have abortions for "mental distress" all of the time.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 8:42 PM

Do women have post-viability abortions for "mental distress" all of the time Bethany? Really? I'm asking quite honestly. How do you know this? And why is this so different then in Canada's case according to the link Elisabeth gave?

Dear Lord, please give asitis eyes to see and ears to hear and soften her hardened heart. Amen.

Posted by: Carla at March 22, 2009 8:43 PM

Carla my heart is soft. We are just different you and I on this.

asitis: how about YOU providing US with a definition of late term abortion?

seeing as NO definition that ANYONE on this blog comes up with will be satisfactory (why are we surprised at this! lol):P

Carla my heart is soft. We are just different you and I on this.

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 9:00 PM

nope. your heart is post abortive. and very hardened, sweet pea!

I don't know. But is it a politically-charged word? Why? I thought it was used, in the sense I was using it, an abortion done after viability, and inasmuch was restricted. I had no idea this was some kind of issue.

I don't like talking to people who can't at least have the decency to TRY to be honest. Stop playing stupid! I'm going to go to bed and talk more later. I can't take more of this tonight.

"However, the Guttmacher says 16 weeks AND UP, which means that there were in reality LATE TERM babies that had been aborted in this study".

Sure Bethany, and so the reason listed also included those for abortions performed prior to late term and not just the reasons for late term abortions.

The poor babies. Their pictures were unexpected...:(.

Poor babies.

A new research study, by the Centre for Sexual Health Research (CSHR) at the University of Southampton and the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research at the University of Kent, has explored why women have abortions in the second trimester, when they are between 13 and 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

There was no single reason why women have abortions in the second trimester: respondents reported a whole variety of reasons that explained their delay in seeking and obtaining an abortion.
A major reason for delay in the pathway to abortion was women not realising that they were pregnant.

Much of the delay occurs prior to women requesting an abortion: half the women questioned were more than 13 weeks pregnant by the time they requested an abortion.

Women’s concerns about what is involved in having the abortion are also important in creating delay.

Various aspects of relationships with their partners and/or parents played a role in delays in women’s decision-making about whether to have an abortion.

Forty one per cent of women in the study said that they were unsure about having an abortion and therefore it took some time to make up their minds.

Over half the teenage women said they were worried how their parents would react, while 23 per cent overall said that their relationship with their partners had broken down or changed.

After requesting an abortion, delays were partly service-related, to do with waiting for appointments, and partly ‘women-related’, to do with missing or cancelling appointments.

Service-related reasons for delay at this stage included delays in getting further appointments and confusion amongst doctors first approached about where a procedure should take place.

Dr Ellie Lee, senior lecturer in social policy at the University of Kent, and report co-author, comments: ‘There has been a great deal of media and public debate recently about second-trimester abortions, especially those performed at 20 weeks and over. What has been lacking in this discussion so far is an understanding of why women have abortions at this stage. This means few have sought to properly address how women can be helped to terminate pregnancies earlier, and how policy makers and service providers might best think about the relevant issues for those women who seek second-trimester abortion.

and since we seem to be involved with a person here of limited understanding of the concepts and definitions involved, we can use a wikipedia article to help her:

A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 12 completed weeks' gestation as "late".[1][2] Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[3][4] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]

I don't like talking to people who can't at least have the decency to TRY to be honest. Stop playing stupid! I'm going to go to bed and talk more later. I can't take more of this tonight.

Posted by: Bethany at March 22, 2009 9:03 PM

Betahny, honestly. Calm down. Please. I am not makng any of this up. I think you are reading me all wrong. I was referring to late term and you started giving data on 16 weeks and up and then asked me why I didn't agree with what was being said about "late term" and I explained that I don't think late term includes all of those weeks and hence all of those reasons. It's not complicated. I think maybe it's because you think I'm being dishonest or difficult that it looks complicated. It's not.

And I looked up the definition too. I found one medical that referred to late term as post- vibility. And also an explanation that that definition, given medical advances and variability, is preferred.

nope. your heart is post abortive. and very hardened, sweet pea!

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:02 PM

Post abortive? Why is it "Angel" that you love to think I've had an abortion?

No it's very soft.

good night Bethany! Don't let asitis give you nightmares!
She's a nightmare ALL BY HERSELF! hehe :P

asitis: how about YOU providing US with a definition of late term abortion?

seeing as NO definition that ANYONE on this blog comes up with will be satisfactory (why are we surprised at this! lol):P

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:01 PM

Oh, I already did "Angel". And guess what? I'm fine with Bethany's too. It seems that there is some variability out there in what is meant by "late term". It's not that one would be "satisfactory" or not to me. It's more a case of using it and having it mean something to everyone.

Betahny, honestly. Calm down. Please. I am not makng any of this up. I think you are reading me all wrong.

haha what a joke you are? Do you think we actually take you seriously. with they way you behave and bait people! Please!!!!

I think maybe it's because you think I'm being dishonest or difficult that it looks complicated. It's not.

YOU THINK? YOU THINK??? boy are you dense girl!

And I looked up the definition too. I found one medical that referred to late term as post- vibility. And also an explanation that that definition, given medical advances and variability, is preferred.

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 9:10 PM

yes and I looked up definitions too and you can se there IS no set definition.

Stop wasting everyones time here. really.

see ya 'round, asitis,

all by her lonesome......

*yawn*

A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 12 completed weeks' gestation as "late".[1][2] Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[3][4] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:09 PM

Well "Angel", an unexpected supporter! Thank you for that. That is what I have been trying to point out all along!

Well, I guess this newcomer actually DOES have a good understanding of the concerpts and definitions. Who's have thunk.

Now, as for the rest of that comment: Do you have anything to offer about third trimester, post-viabilty abortion rather than second trimester seeeing as that's what we are talking about?

She's a nightmare ALL BY HERSELF! hehe :P

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:13 PM

Oh I bet I am to you "Angel".Hee hee. Sorry (not!) for the rough time today, but you set yourself up for that, repeatedly.

Sleep tight. Hope it's not too chilly up there tonight!

And guess what? I'm fine with Bethany's too.

of course you are darling, now that you've irritated her so much that she's left

which is likely your purpose here: to stifle discussion with your incessant putdowns, badgering and circular discussion..

*yawn* gotta go, you bore me.....

yes and I looked up definitions too and you can se there IS no set definition.

Stop wasting everyones time here. really.

Posted by: angel at March 22, 2009 9:18 PM

Exactly! No set definition. Just what I was saying all along. And did you see? I even thanked you for that @9:20pm!

Oh, I know you'd like me to go away "Angel". But you know what? You can just ignore my comments. Then you wouldn't be wasting your time. Really.

great comeback asitis! NOT!

*yawn* still bored....

Just can't get enough can you "Angel"? What are you a masochist? You got whooped today babe. you should go to bed......

Regardless, I believe that the medical exemption for abortion, regardless of trimester, has now been laid to rest as a myth purported by the proabortion side as a reason to keep abortion legal through all three trimesters... and that it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be untrue.

I am making no claims at this time beyond that fact, but whatever other "claims" may be made, this particular one no longer has a claim to merit.

So this is a fact Elisabeth? Who has laid it to rest? And if it is laid to rest, why do doctors still approve it? And why is it still allowed?

Hi asitis,

Roe v. Wade made abortion legal here in the U.S., but the decision Doe v. Bolton made it legal through all nine months of pregnancy. Here is a link to info regarding that decision: http://law.jrank.org/pages/13300/Doe-v-Bolton.html

This is the part I want to point out: The court decided that "medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

This is why so many pro-abortion politicians and organizations fight to include a "health exception" in any regulatory law. It essentially nullifies any restriction on abortion. This can be used up through nine months of pregnancy, and as you can see from Doe v. Bolton, any factor can be ruled as "health."

Doctors approve late-term abortions because there is money to be made, and abortion is a profitable industry. The later the abortion, the more money it will bring in to the provider. It is also riskier for the woman, but it is still allowed by our law in the U.S. Most people don't know this and have no idea about Doe v. Bolton in the first place.

Thanks Kel.

Here's an interesting article I found from canada. It's from CTV news from 2004. I don't know if this is still the case ........

QUEBEC CITY -- Dozens of Canadian women who must travel to the United States for controversial abortions when they're about six months pregnant and beyond may soon have an option closer to home.

Quebec health officials said they are hopeful a newly trained doctor will set up practice in the province next year, offering a service that even staunch pro-choice Canadian doctors like Henry Morgentaler refuse to provide for ethical reasons.

"The right to an abortion is well-recognized in Quebec and Canada," Cathy Rouleau, a spokeswoman for Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard, said Friday.

"We have an obligation to get a patient the help that she needs."

Canadian women currently travel to Colorado, Kansas and Washington each year to have late-term abortions because no Canadian doctor will perform them.

The stateside procedures are paid for by provinces including British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, where 85 per cent of about 105,000 abortions in Canada are performed each year. Each late-term abortion costs about $5,000 US.

Morgentaler said he has concerns about late-term abortions.

"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic.

"Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that."

Morgentaler said the late-term abortions are mainly performed on women who have learned of severe birth defects during tests performed late in pregnancy and on teenage girls who have tried to hide their pregnancy.

"What we do at our clinics is if we have a problem like that we usually council the woman to continue the pregnancy and put it up for adoption if she is unable to care for it," he said.

Msgr. Marc Ouellet, bishop of the Quebec City archdiocese, said the Quebec government would be better off spending money assisting mothers to carry their children through to adoption.

"It's easy to see it's an abomination when someone reaches a certain number of months, we can see it's killing a human being," Ouellet said.

"But why do we draw such subtle distinctions? What's the difference of a few months? The whole thing is unacceptable."

Last year in Quebec, 30 women travelled to the United States for abortions after they were 22 weeks pregnant. About 31,000 abortions are performed in Quebec each year.

Morgentaler said about 15 women make the trip from Ontario each year. A British Columbia health department official said no statistics are kept but the province sends a handful of women to Washington every week.

A Statistics Canada survey of abortions in 2001 showed 96.7 per cent were completed before 16 weeks of pregnancy.

Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard defended the late-term abortions, saying the decision isn't made lightly by women and their doctors. Abortions are riskier and more complicated later in pregnancy.

"It is extremely hard for a woman to have a late abortion and also hard for the doctor that performs it, both psychologically and other ways," Couillard told CBC radio.

He said the late-term abortions are often "related to congenital malformations but also sometimes for other reasons."

Debate has raged in the United States where a handful of clinics offer late abortions and President George W. Bush has tried to ban them. The ban has been struck down in three lower courts and will likely be settled by the United States Supreme Court.

Canada has gone without a law on abortion since 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the law severely restricting the practice.

Canadian women have sought late-term abortions in the United States for years. In 1989, a Quebec woman whose boyfriend went to court to block her abortion had the procedure done in the United States when she was about 22 weeks pregnant.

The Canadian Medical Association sets guidelines for doctors, suggesting pregnancy should be terminated before the fetus is viable. The CMA says a fetus can be viable at 500 grams or 20 weeks.

Access to abortion varies by province, with each setting rules for funding.

Morgentaler said he does not see a need for rules on late abortions, despite his personal ethical opposition to them.

"There are already more or less rules, most abortions are done much before they reach 24 weeks," he said.

"Most are done at six to nine weeks. Most women know the earlier they come the better it is for them and the less it is a question of having to deal with a human fetus."

Morgentaler said he has concerns about late-term abortions.

"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic.

"Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that."
************************************************

Wow...the things you have to keep telling yourself in order to do abortions. "We...abort fetuses before they become babies."

I wonder where that magical point IS in fetal development. Apparently Morgentaler sees it as "viability" but I know of people on this board who don't even see a nine-month fetus or newborn as "fully viable." And in this article they mention viability at 20 weeks? I find that interesting. It's all very subjective when you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn from conception, which is what an unborn child is...HUMAN, from day one. It is scientific fact.

Asitis, I have laid it to rest and unless you would like to prove me wrong by listing a legitimate medical situation that can only be resolved by aborting the child, then this is one argument you can never in good conscience utilize again.

Not that I truly think you (1) have a conscience or (2) make actual arguments.

"Most are done at six to nine weeks. Most women know the earlier they come the better it is for them and the less it is a question of having to deal with a human fetus."

What precisely is it, then? A frog fetus? A pig fetus? What manner of species grows inside a human female if not human?

Why is that? Because you can't keep up? C'mon "Angel" I shut you down on all your silly refutes! Not bad for a .. what was it?... nincompoop!

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 6:09 PM

A legend in her own mind this Asitis.

You think you shut everyone down Asitis.

Bethany asked you a question. Do those pictures make you sad. No answer.

Give Bethany your best Nazi answer which I predict will not be a simple Yes or No.

Actually, you plead ignorance when caught being a simple minded pro-Nazi at this site.

When asked why you won't have sex with a homosexual, you think your not a bigot, and compound it with denying sex with ALL of the "same sex", which included the most beautiful also.

That's sheer phobia. You think that the charge of you being a phobic is about your vision and feelings of yourself, when it is a charge against you from the pov of a same sex person.

There is no reason for you to deny a person of the same sex a simple little kiss. The defence of your phobia was based on the subjective rejection of sex with a same sex person was....beauty.

You were then asked if you found not one same sex person, "beautiful enough", to have sex with.

No answer.

You got a long list of "no answer's" and diversion to some side subject which you then pursue.

Kind of like Obama.

IRL, people such as you Asitis, are classified quite quickly as having a severe case of ideological commitment.

You display two traits at this board, narcissism, and hypocrisy.

Your for gay rights, but won't even kiss a same sex person since your personal fear leaves you doing what you do best,,,,,,, being a hypocrite with no actions to back up those words you preach.

Your for killing other people by spreading the faith of euthansia, but deny it for yourself. More preaching with no personal commitment to euthanasia, to judge if you are nothing more then a cheap propagandist unable to kill yourself from being caught in the exquisite dilemma you face as a narcissist.

So, here is another question for ya Asitis.

Your trapped on a island with only your off spring, and one of them ask you to euthannize them since they are suffering in pain.

Yes or no.

Yllas!!!!! You're back! And still making ridiculous claims that I am a homophobe. I guess there is really no way to get it through you head that I am not.Does it make you feel better to think that I am? One can only guess. And I'm going to let you go and guess about my answers to your questions....you never pay attention to the ones I give anyway. It's all your babe. Go crazy.

And what's your fascination with me trapped on a dessert island anyway? You must know by now that I am tall, blond and strong. Do you like to think of me a la Usrsula Andress, emerging form the sea in a bikini, knife strapped to my hip? hahahahahahahaha! Oh I can only imagine what goes through that head of yours yllas!

You got whooped today babe. you should go to bed......

Posted by: asitis at March 22, 2009 9:43 PM

in your dreams, hon.

Not that I truly think you (1) have a conscience or (2) make actual arguments.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 23, 2009 12:57 AM

quite right Elisabeth!
no conscience definitely (and sadly)

asitis, makes statements which are ALWAYS unsupported
they are mere opinions and not much at that.

asitis, makes statements which are ALWAYS unsupported
they are mere opinions and not much at that.

Posted by: angel at March 23, 2009 6:47 AM

Really, "Angel". Not much at that? How many times how you challenged me as Patricia, toostunned, and angel and been proven wrong? Shall we go back and count? I really don't think you want to do that, do you?

Yllas!!!!! You're back! And still making ridiculous claims that I am a homophobe. I guess there is really no way to get it through you head that I am not.Does it make you feel better to think that I am? One can only guess. And I'm going to let you go and guess about my answers to your questions....you never pay attention to the ones I give anyway. It's all your babe. Go crazy.

Posted by: asitis at March 23, 2009 4:14 AM

Exactly as a bigot filled with fear responds.

Another "No Answer" reply.

Trying to reduce the fact that your character on this board has displayed homophobic traits as ridiculous, is reaching for the comedy reaction as Obama did about another group of people.

Bigots think alike.

Who me? Ridiculous writes Asitis, I'm not a homophobe, I just can't even write that I would ever kiss the most beautiful lesbian in the world.

According to the authorities of homosexuality, homosexuals, every person has a homosexual side to them. But not Asitis. She's all hetero without even a thought about kissin' a women. How ridiculous you are, denying any, including a thought about having sexual relations with the same sex. You gave "NO Answer" to that statement too Asitis.

And what's your fascination with me trapped on a dessert island anyway? You must know by now that I am tall, blond and strong. Do you like to think of me a la Usrsula Andress, emerging form the sea in a bikini, knife strapped to my hip? hahahahahahahaha! Oh I can only imagine what goes through that head of yours yllas!

Posted by: asitis at March 23, 2009 6:04 AM

Would you kiss Ursala Andress ASitis? What goes through your head is that every human being is a object for narcissistic purposes. Beginning with sexual beauty.

More Rorschach cometh forth from Asitis. Ursala comes to the mind of Asitis, a mirror image of ya huh Asitis? Mirror Mirror on the wall whose the most beautiful of them all. Why Asitis, the strong Germanic type of women who was ready and willing to murder all those non-Aryan's going down the birthing assembly line after being breed for racial superiority.

Hey, you really do fit the Aryan superiority complex if your unwanted description of yourself is true. Does your last name end in "ER"?

Really? yllas. Everyone has a homosexaul side? So are you suggesting that "authorities on homosexuality, homosexuals" claim homosexuals choose t be homosexual. Really????? Or is it actually that, rather than having a homosexual "side", that all people have attraction for the same and the opposite sex, but of varying strengths. That is, a homosexual is strongly attracted to the same sex and insignificantly attracted to the opposite sex? And the opposite is true for a heterosexual. And a bisexual feels significant attraction for both sexes. Hmmmmm?

"Would you kiss Ursala Andress ASitis"

Haha. I;m not sexually attracted to her if that's what you getting at. But would you? Or would you be waiting around for Ssean Connery. (Hubba hubba). But seriously.... why do you love thinking about me on a dessert island, sun beating down on my naked, tanned, freckled skin, lonely for male company?

BTW, you gave "NO Answer" to the island question concerning your actions of euthanzing your own flesh and blood.

Really, Angel has you pegged, as does many more at this board.

Why did I give no answer to that question? Well let's see now.... Well for starters, my sons are monirs and incapable of making that decision, so I would in essence be making it for them. Secondly, you provide no details: What has happened to them? What are their chances of survival? How intense is this pain? How would I manage to put them out of their misery (should i assume I am wearing Ursula's knife belt? or is their some toxic plant on the island?) Is there there any hope of rescue before they might die? You're going to have to give me the details before I answer yllas. I don't want you adding them afterwards... again. Be straight up.

asitis,
Your heart is hardened to the innocent little ones who should be safe and warm and protected in the womb but they are sucked out and chopped in pieces and die excruciating deaths in the name of choice. The choice that you support. The choice to kill.
You do not have the balls to admit that you could care less if they die.

"my sons are monirs"

monirs? that should be minors!

Carla, I can appreciated why you would feel that way about me. I know what this means to you. Honestly. Sincerely. And from my heart.

"Would you kiss Ursala Andress ASitis"

Haha. I;m not sexually attracted to her if that's what you getting at. But would you? Or would you be waiting around for Ssean Connery. (Hubba hubba). But seriously.... why do you love thinking about me on a dessert island, sun beating down on my naked, tanned, freckled skin, lonely for male company?

Posted by: asitis at March 23, 2009 7:30 AM

Your not sexually attracted to any female enough to even write that you would kiss one. Name one female you would have sex with Asitis.

Even a kiss.

Your a homophobe, with a strickly constructed idea of yourself, denying your homosexual tendencies exhibited in the fact that you recognize sexual beauty in women. You do "see" sexual beauty in other women, do you not Asitis?

Admit your homosexual tendencies are a natural part of you, or continue your denial of what is a natural part of your sexuality.

Yes, I have homoseual tendencies.

No, I have no homosexual tendencies.

You can guess what a No makes you in the eyes of the homosexual community. A Bigot. filled with fear.

As for the island analogy.

In truth, every decision is reached between people on a individual level. Such as the murder of their own flesh and blood via abortion.

There can be millions on a island, but, the decision to euthanize your own off spring comes down to a decision which excludes all others.

You really are dense and quite ignorant of life. A sheer hypocrite, propagandizing others for which you will not do.

"You can guess what a No makes you in the eyes of the homosexual community. A Bigot. filled with fear".

Oh really? Hmm. I'll have to ask some gays I know if they feel that way yllas! OMG! Too funny!

You didn't clarify for me what you claimed "authorities on homosexuality" are saying:

Really? yllas. Everyone has a homosexaul side? So are you suggesting that "authorities on homosexuality, homosexuals" claim homosexuals choose t be homosexual. Really????? Or is it actually that, rather than having a homosexual "side", that all people have attraction for the same and the opposite sex, but of varying strengths. That is, a homosexual is strongly attracted to the same sex and insignificantly attracted to the opposite sex? And the opposite is true for a heterosexual. And a bisexual feels significant attraction for both sexes. Hmmmmm?

Posted by: asitis at March 23, 2009 7:27 AM

In truth, every decision is reached between people on a individual level. Such as the murder of their own flesh and blood via abortion.

There can be millions on a island, but, the decision to euthanize your own off spring comes down to a decision which excludes all others.

Posted by: yllas at March 23, 2009 7:54 AM

So what exactly are you saying about my first point that my children are not old enough to make that decision?

And there could be millions there? Oh... I see so we're not actually talking about beingf stranded on a desserted island, are we? That's not really essential to your scenario? Then why do you have me frolicking around in my bikini yllas? Cheeky monkey!

Asitis, my pictures at 8:18, 8:19, and 8:20 PM last night...are they sad?

Asitis, is it sad when a woman decides to abort her fetus at 7 months for reasons of convenience (ie. Wanting to fit into an outfit she really likes)?

Why did I give no answer to that question? Well let's see now.... Well for starters, my sons are monirs and incapable of making that decision, so I would in essence be making it for them. Secondly, you provide no details: What has happened to them? What are their chances of survival? How intense is this pain? How would I manage to put them out of their misery (should i assume I am wearing Ursula's knife belt? or is their some toxic plant on the island?) Is there there any hope of rescue before they might die? You're going to have to give me the details before I answer yllas. I don't want you adding them afterwards... again. Be straight up.

Posted by: asitis at March 23, 2009 7:35 AM

Exactly what a person who avoids answering a simple question does.

Your playing the sophist, where you twist and turn a subject until it appears as your reality demands it to be.

Are you denying your child the ability to think freely? Your child, using your philosphy concerning mercy killing to relief pain is asking you to do as you say. Kill him/her, to relief his/her pain and suffering.

Afterall, from mommy did the off spring learn such ideas. Now, you play the hypocritical sophist and demand all types of scenarios to deny again the hypocricy inherent within your narcissistic self.

Really, your such a moral illiterate pondering life from your tower of the mind where no actions occur within your life. Kinda like a monk. But a monk that is preaching a culture of death.

, is it sad when a woman decides to abort her fetus at 7 months for reasons of convenience (ie. Wanting to fit into an outfit she really likes)?

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 8:08 AM

Honestly Bethany, does that happen? Really?

Why did I give no answer to that question? Well let's see now.... Well for starters, my sons are monirs and incapable of making that decision, so I would in essence be making it for them. Secondly, you provide no details: What has happened to them? What are their chances of survival? How intense is this pain? How would I manage to put them out of their misery (should i assume I am wearing Ursula's knife belt? or is their some toxic plant on the island?) Is there there any hope of rescue before they might die? You're going to have to give me the details before I answer yllas. I don't want you adding them afterwards... again. Be straight up.

Your sons are unable to make that decision for themselves because they are minors? Why do you then support the decision of a minor to abort without parental consent? Hmm.

Honestly Bethany, does that happen? Really?

YES!

NOW, answer the question.

Are you denying your child the ability to think freely? Your child, using your philosphy concerning mercy killing to relief pain is asking you to do as you say. Kill him/her, to relief his/her pain and suffering.

Afterall, from mommy did the off spring learn such ideas. Now, you play the hypocritical sophist and demand all types of scenarios to deny again the hypocricy inherent within your narcissistic self.

Really, your such a moral illiterate pondering life from your tower of the mind where no actions occur within your life. Kinda like a monk. But a monk that is preaching a culture of death.

Posted by: yllas at March 23, 2009 8:08 AM

Wow. Classic yllas. Sweet!

Am I denying my child's freedom to think freely? Um, no. But they cannot make that kind of decision for themselves yet. I would have to. And if you want yo know if I would or not, you'd need to explain the circumstances as I already explained. If you can't/won't do that, then you'll just have to live with no answer, because I can't give you one.

Now, I have to go to pilates (narcism!!!!) but I'll be back. Go crazy.

NOW, answer the question.

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 8:11 AM

I already explained to you last night why i won't. Go back and look for it if you missed it. I gotta go. Back later.

I already explained to you last night why i won't. Go back and look for it if you missed it. I gotta go. Back later.

That in itself is the answer. You don't care. Thanks, Asitis.

correct: I don't care to give you my answer Bethany.

Ttfn

No, you don't care, Asitis. Nice try though.

Asitis, my pictures at 8:18, 8:19, and 8:20 PM last night...are they sad?
Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 8:05 AM

Am I denying my child's freedom to think freely? Um, no. But they cannot make that kind of decision for themselves yet. I would have to. And if you want yo know if I would or not, you'd need to explain the circumstances as I already explained. If you can't/won't do that, then you'll just have to live with no answer, because I can't give you one.

Now, I have to go to pilates (narcism!!!!) but I'll be back. Go crazy.

Posted by: asitis at March 23, 2009 8:14 AM

Make up a scenario that fills the bill for you, so you may euthannize your own flesh and blood Asitis.

One scenario was played out during WW2, on Saipan.

Your a Japanese women, whose life is filled with pain and suffering and jump off a cliff with her children.

To leave your child in this world is to leave them more pain and suffering.

Afterall, you made um, you aborted them, and you surely must stop their pain and suffering.

Have you explained the honor of sepeku, verus the cowardly idea of Western Euthansia to your children Asitis?
If not why not?

answered this last night Bethany

Into class now.........

Nope, Asitis, you didn't.

Bethany.

Those pictures are sad. They make a person with a heart for life feel like crying.

Since God put emotions into human beings, what is the purpose of the emotion of crying?

When a narcissist crys, what is the purpose?

That is a good question, Yllas. I would think the only reason a narcissist would cry is to get attention. A person with a heart cries because his soul is wounded and hurt.

And I agree- those pictures make me want to cry.

Bethany, Yllas, Angel,
Doesn't it make sense that someone that supports the killing come right out and say that they support the killing? I mean who is asitis trying to fool?

Remember SoMG? At least he/she never had any qualms about abortion and in fact seemed to enjoy doing them. I can handle brutal honesty like that.

Own what you believe, asitis. We already know. Your word games get beyond tiresome.

That is a good question, Yllas. I would think the only reason a narcissist would cry is to get attention. A person with a heart cries because his soul is wounded and hurt.

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 8:48 AM

Could you explain more the "his soul is wounded and hurt".

I believe there are some words in the Bible that go like this; "it is written in the heart". Now, being no expert on the Bible, as Hisman is, what does that mean to you Bethany?

I once told a mother to cry when her son was doing something wrong, like smoking dope, and see what the son did when he saw her crying over his decision to be a outlaw. He ignored her tears.

Why would a son ignore the sorrow of a mother?

Carla, exactly!!

I believe there are some words in the Bible that go like this; "it is written in the heart". Now, being no expert on the Bible, as Hisman is, what does that mean to you Bethany?

I believe the law of God is written on our hearts, as it says in Hebrews 8:10:

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."—Hebrews 8:10.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to ask with your question though. Can you explain further what you are trying to ask, so I can give a better answer?

I once told a mother to cry when her son was doing something wrong, like smoking dope, and see what the son did when he saw her crying over his decision to be a outlaw. He ignored her tears.
Why would a son ignore the sorrow of a mother?

His heart has been hardened.

Doesn't it make sense that someone that supports the killing come right out and say that they support the killing? I mean who is asitis trying to fool?
posted by Carla.

She trys to fool herself.

It's a trait of narcissism.

Asitis, let me rephrase my question to you, so that you will have a better understanding of it:

Asitis, my pictures at 8:18, 8:19, and 8:20 PM last night...are they sad TO YOU?
Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 8:05 AM

Bethany.

My point is that God put crying into a human being so his heart may not be hardened.

When you cry, you cry for others. If you cry for yourself, which I suspect of Asitis, you reveal your narcissism has taken over what God has put in you to reveal your conscience, which can't be fooled every minute of every day.

Same with a prayer.

Well said, Yllas.

are they sad to me? I already told you last night why I won't answer this question. Guess, badger, cajole all you want......

Ahhhhh so relaxed. Hope the errands don't blow this feeling!

Later

Asitis, why not answer? We already know you support it.

Guess, badger, cajole all you want......

I don't need to guess. I know.

Don't you know by now that I ask you the question for your sake? For your benefit?
Not for my own.

oh so sweet bethany. But oh my, still so sweet if I differ?

Ahhhhh so relaxed. Hope the errands don't blow this feeling!

Cause we all know that pictures of babies hands chopped into pieces won't ruin that relaxed feeling for Asitis...

oh, I guess sweet bethany has left for the moment.

What does being sweet have to do with this issue, Asitis? Tell me, do you think that those images above are "sweet"?

Why did my comment appear unsweet to you, Asitis? You haven't yet said whether those pictures disturb or sadden you. If you aren't offended by the pictures enough to let us know that you are, then you also should not be offended by my commenting that you aren't bothered by the pictures.

Already moved from cajole to badger.... Just like that! I'm sorry was that still an attempt at sweetness?

Bethany, just so you know I actually like it that you have an edge!

Hey Asitis, do you think the person who caused what happened in the above images to happen... is a "sweet" person?

Again, you have failed to answer any of the questions with any honesty.

It doesn't concern me if my posts come across as "sweet" or whatever else you might describe them as.

I am only concerned with getting an honest answer from you, as opposed to your deflections and deceptions.

Asitis, I have never attempted to flatter or deceive you into answering questions. I have been quite upfront about my intentions here.

asitis won't answer the questions because she knows that it would be an admission that abortion is a heinous thing and that she has been wrong to support abortion. Or even worse, that if she is not saddened by the video then she has the most hardened of hearts.

If she only knew how freeing it would be to shed the lie that is "choice" and to choose life. It isn't too late!

do I think that person is sweet Bethany? I have idea. I know nothing about them aside from that they performed the abortions.

Hello Eileen! I must say, I am somewhat amused by all the attention. I'll just sit on the sidelines and let you run with this....,

Okay, Asitis, based on what you saw in those pictures, would you say that an individual who could do that would be a nice person for doing so?

Do you think that it is a nice thing to do?

Also, here is more information about the man who killed those babies:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/hodari/

Another question: do you think it's possible to be more evasive of questions than you are?

Why do you find it difficult to believe that a woman would abort a 7 month baby for reasons of convenience?

I am somewhat amused by all the attention.

Of course you are. Yllas was right that this is about narcissism. You post here to get attention, and nothing more.

Bethany I still don't know enough to say wether that person is nice or sweet.

Don't forget though, I am not a polifer. I do not think someone who performs abortion is necessarily evil for doing do.

So are you admitting that those pictures were not sad to you then?

Don't forget though, I am not a polifer. I do not think someone who performs abortion is necessarily evil for doing do.

Hmm, I didn't say "evil", did I?

I said "NICE" or not "NICE". Is the opposite of "nice" "evil", Asitis?

Nice: 1. Pleasing and agreeable in nature:

similarly, nor do I think scientists doing escr are evil. Nor are the makers of my Pill. No I for taking the pill.........

Don't forget though, I am not a polifer. I do not think someone who performs abortion is necessarily evil for doing do.

Hmm, I didn't say "evil", did I?

I said "NICE" or not "NICE". Is the opposite of "nice" "evil", Asitis?
Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 11:31 AM

Asitis, does your husband do ESCR?
Just curious.

really? You don't think someone is evil for doing abortions? How about not nice?

Now back to me ( oh such narcism!) .... Go back and sustitute " not nice" in there for where i wrote "evil".

And no, I'm not saying anything about the photos. Nice try though.

really? You don't think someone is evil for doing abortions? How about not nice?

Another diversion. Surprise! lol My question was whether you think that the person who did that is a nice individual. It has nothing to do with how I feel about abortionists. Try again.

Now back to me ( oh such narcism!) .... Go back and sustitute " not nice" in there for where i wrote "evil".

I didn't ask you about abortionists in general. I asked specifically about the one who did what is in those photos. Try again.

And I'm also not asking if he's "not nice", but if you think he is "nice" for what he did.

really? You don't think someone is evil for doing abortions? How about not nice?

Another diversion. Surprise! lol My question was whether you think that the person who did that is a nice individual. It has nothing to do with how I feel about abortionists. Try again.

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 11:57 AM

Ahem... you're the one who mentioned how you feel (or rather don't feel about abortionists.

Ahem... you're the one who mentioned how you feel (or rather don't feel about abortionists.

Ahem, the question:

Okay, Asitis, based on what you saw in those pictures, would you say that an individual who could do that would be a nice person for doing so?

Do you think that it is a nice thing to do?

Could they be a nice person for doing so? Well, does performing an abortion make a person "pleasing and agreeable in nature" (your definition btw)? I don't really think it necessarily does or doesn't. Do you really think it does? Oh wait, sorry... not supposed to ask that!

Now as for the doctor in the link, all I know is: there was a warrant against him for improperly disposing of medical records, he was was accused of improperly disposing of medical waste, and a prolife group "reportedly found body parts of fetuses, other medical waste and the records in the trash bins". No fine was levied against the clinc after procedures had been corrected.

Based on all of that, and what I said above, I can't say whether he was nice or not for what he did.

Asitis, does your husband do ESCR?
Just curious.

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 11:39 AM

No but he is a part of the big picture.

Okay sweet Bethany. The groceries or away and the dog needs a hike, so anything else before a head out the door?

No but he is a part of the big picture.

I knew it. Thanks, Asitis. It shows your reason for posting here.

"pleasing and agreeable in nature" (your definition btw)? I don't really think it necessarily does or doesn't. Do you really think it does?

LOL,again, you are answering a question you made up in your head. That is not the question I asked. I am not talking about abortions *in general*...I am talking about what happened that is in that picture. Try again.

I asked you this:

Okay, Asitis, based on what you saw in those pictures, would you say that an individual who could do that *what you saw in the picture* would be a nice person for doing so? Yes or no.

Do you personally think that it is a nice thing to do? Yes or no.

Do you personally think that what was done to the baby in picture a was a nice thing?

Do you personally think that what was done to the baby in picture b was a nice thing?

Do you personally think that what was done to the baby in picture c was a nice thing?

Easy. Yes or no will suffice.

By big picture, Bethany I mean BIG picture. It's a very small part of what he does. He is by no means dependent on it, if that's what you are thinking.

By big picture, Bethany I mean BIG picture. It's a very small part of what he does. He is by no means dependent on it, if that's what you are thinking.

Thanks, Asitis, it explains a lot. :)

C-ya soon...gotta make lunch and mail out a package.

Easy. Yes or no will suffice.

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 12:34 PM

I think the problem is, as I explained before, that nice might be the wrong word to use. "Pleasing and agreeable in nature".

You started off by asking me if the doctor was a sweet person for doing this. Then you changed this to is he a nice person. Problem is, then you took that a step further and are asking me if the abortion itself was nice. Is there anyway, no matter what you believe that an abortion would be called "pleasing and agreeable in nature"? Would any medical procedure be referred to in such a way? Nice? I think you need a new word.

No, I don't need a new word, I just need you to answer the question. I'm leaving now.

By big picture, Bethany I mean BIG picture. It's a very small part of what he does. He is by no means dependent on it, if that's what you are thinking.

Thanks, Asitis, it explains a lot. :)

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 12:37 PM

What would it explain? That he thinks escr is okay, so therefore I must? Remember, we don't have that kind of marriage!

No, I don't need a new word, I just need you to answer the question. I'm leaving now.

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 12:44 PM

Well I can't answer it because the defintion you gave doesn't make sense. You should have switched words when you switched for the person to the procedure.

Is there anyway, no matter what you believe that an abortion would be called "pleasing and agreeable in nature"? Would any medical procedure be referred to in such a way? Nice? I think you need a new word.

No but he is a part of the big picture.

I knew it. Thanks, Asitis. It shows your reason for posting here.

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 12:29 PM

Bethany, I'm sorry I think I have confused you. Let me explain better: The work my husband does supports every application of science - research, education, healthcare, industry..... And in every field of science. If I were to give you the name of the compnay, chances are, depending on the role they play, the nurses here may know it. I think Patricia said before that she worked/has worked in a research lab and, if so, safe to say she would know the company. Regardless of her scientific field. It's that big and broad-based. You could have asked me does he do (pretty much any science-related work) and I would have given you the same answer I gave for stem cell research.

Does that explain it better without giving up what he does or who he works for?

Wow... just made it through that thread. FTR, I fail to see what the homosexual stuff has to do with anything...

Regardless, Asitis admits she has no medical knowledge, yet when confronted with the facts that her "belief" that because it is legal to commit late term abortions there MUST be a medical reason for it is WRONG... completely wrong... she ignores the facts and claims that the issue of medical reasons for late-term abortions is still not settled.

Unless (which is impossible) Asitis can provide a medical condition for which death of the child is the ONLY possible way to save the mother's life, the issue IS settled and she has proven herself to be, again, not about facts, but about ideologies... abortion at any cost.

She simply cannot answer Bethany's questions, because she is, as pointed out, a complete narcissist (not a narcist, Asitis, learn to spell what you are) and apparently is incapable of any human emotion... as previously pointed out, dismembered babies don't ruin her relaxed mood...

Asitis, I pity you.

Does that explain it better without giving up what he does or who he works for?

Yes, it absolutely did. Thank you so much for confirming my suspicions.

Elisabeth, I know I sound like a broken record, but I agree!

"Regardless, Asitis admits she has no medical knowledge, yet when confronted with the facts that her "belief" that because it is legal to commit late term abortions there MUST be a medical reason for it is WRONG... completely wrong... she ignores the facts and claims that the issue of medical reasons for late-term abortions is still not settled."

Elisabeth, I was basing this "belief" on what the law is. Nothing more.

Incapable of human emotion? That's good!(I AM A ROBOT. Grrrrrrr!!!! Or a monster?) You pity me? Well gee, thanks, that's sweet. But save that for someone who warrants it..... and cares! ;)

"Wow... just made it through that thread. FTR, I fail to see what the homosexual stuff has to do with anything..."

Yeh, well that would be yllas. He keeps trying to call me a homophobe (!!!!) and likes to fantasize about me on a dessert island. I know... a bit creepy.

Does that explain it better without giving up what he does or who he works for?

Yes, it absolutely did. Thank you so much for confirming my suspicions.

Posted by: Bethany at March 23, 2009 5:14 PM

That I should have just said "no"" to your answer?

I don't know, Asitis. Say whatever you want to say. I don't have a problem with what you said.

Have a great evening!!

Great! You too Bethany!

asitis: alone again, naturally.....

Elisabeth, I was basing this "belief" on what the law is. Nothing more.
Posted by: asitis at March 23, 2009 5:42 PM
********************************************'

And the link I provided on Doe v. Bolton shows that abortion, according to U.S. law at any rate, is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, not just in the case of a life-threatening medical circumstance.

Thanks Kel. I did read that. But it doesn't seem to me that US laws allow for abortion "for any reason" after viability. The Doe piece ends with this on its subsequent impact:

"Impact
In Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton the Court upheld a woman's right to an abortion. Notably the Doe case defined "health" as includinga woman's age, and physical, psychological, and familial factors. Through themid-1980s, the Court adhered to its rulings in those cases, despite state challenges. In 1989 came the first sharp departure from the 1973 rulings. In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the Court decided to letstand a Missouri law stating that human life began at conception, that barred the use of state property for abortions, and that required viability testsfor advanced pregnancies. Some state legislatures began to pass new abortionrestrictions after this decision. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court reached a practical compromise allowing limited state regulation of abortion, yet still preserving general access to abortion. The Court decided that abortion after viability (20-22 weeks)can be banned and pre-viability laws only have to meet the new "undue burden"standard, meaning that a "compelling" state interest is not required as longas the law does not form a "substantial obstacle" to obtaining an abortion.This case has replaced Roe v. Wade as the dominant precedent on abortion."

For what the current laws are I was going by the summary I found at Guttmacher. There is a chart on the second page showing each state's restrictions.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf

Doesn't this show that abortions in the US are restricted after viability?

Doesn't this show that abortions in the US are restricted after viability?

Posted by: asitis at March 24, 2009 6:39 AM
*************************************************

No, they are not restricted after viability. The "health" exception makes certain of that. However, if certain STATES wish to restrict the federal law, they can attempt to do so. It doesn't always work, because pro-choice politicians and lobbyists, as I stated earlier, fight for the "health" exception in every case.

In what you quoted above, this is key: "The Court decided that abortion after viability (20-22 weeks)can be banned and pre-viability laws only have to meet the new "undue burden"standard, meaning that a "compelling" state interest is not required as long as the law does not form a "substantial obstacle" to obtaining an abortion."

(emphasis mine)

Sorry, I meant to continue that after viability, states can seek to restrict the law. They can require that a judge grant permission due to the "financial" or "mental" state of the woman. It's not that difficult to find a pro-choice judge to rule in favor of that late term abortion.

George Tiller's entire business is LATE TERM abortions, asitis. You might want to read up on him.

*doh* I mean to say "petition" that a judge grant permission, not "require."

And the "health" exception is nothing but a giant loophole left in place to allow late term abortions for any reason (the nebulous psychological or emotional health reasons being included).

Once again, while I understand what you based your belief on, it has been shown to be wrong. You have great difficulty admitting that fact.

thanks girls. So Kel, the state laws do restrict abortion post- viability. You cannot just have one for "any reason" . But what you are saying is that, despite these restrictions, doctors are performing abortions on viable fetuses when there actual is no danger to the woman's health or life?

If this the case, it's not that I have a hard time "admitting " it Elisabeth. It's just that I haven't been able to find anything on how often this actually happens. Do you have anything?

Also, I gave a news story earlier here from canada from 2004 stating that post- viability abortion were not offered in Canada so women went to the US. Why is it, do you think, that in Canada, where there are no restrictions, doctors would not perform these abortions but in the US doctors will supposedly break the law to do them?

I'm not being difficult btw. I am honestly curious and want to know what is actually happening . Thanks for your input.

And the "health" exception is nothing but a giant loophole left in place to allow late term abortions for any reason (the nebulous psychological or emotional health reasons being included).

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 24, 2009 10:13 AM
*******************************************

Yes, exactly. Thanks, Elisabeth. :)

So Kel, the state laws do restrict abortion post- viability.
************************************

No, the state laws CAN restrict abortion post-viability. Not all of them choose to do so, and even the ones who choose to attempt restriction are fought by the abortion lobby.

"You cannot just have one for "any reason"."
**********************************

Yes, you can. We've talked about this. Read the Doe language again about the "health" exceptions. They include anything and everything under the sun.

"But what you are saying is that, despite these restrictions, doctors are performing abortions on viable fetuses when there actual is no danger to the woman's health or life?"
*****************************************

There may be no actual danger, but if there is a "perceived" threat, such as financial instability or questionable mental well-being, an abortion can be obtained. All the "doctor" has to do is sign off on the reason the woman gives...rape, incest, fetal abnormality, mental illness, financial strain...often what you'll see is a rape claim (with no actual rape report filed, of course). There is no clinic regulation. These doctors are rarely, if ever, held accountable.

Butchow often is the law actually stretched as you suggest in post- viability abortions kel? Do you have any idea? I can see how it could happen, but how often does it? And what about the supposed difference between canadian doctors and US doctors?

Well, asitis, seeing as how Dr. Tiller has so many patients and a very lucrative practice where he does late term abortions, it occurs often enough. There is very little "stretching" required when clinics aren't monitored or regulated.

From Dr. Tiller's website: "Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you."

There's that word again..."health."

According to the testimony going on in court now, at least five to six patients per day were seen by Tiller's partner doctor at the practice. The prosecution also claims that she did nothing else...she was able to support herself on this income.

It happens often enough for Tiller to donate lucrative sums of money to politicians who will favor him and allow him to stay in business.

By the way, his site ALSO says:

"At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion."

Emphasis mine.

Here's another site I found regarding Tiller's practices. Some of the info, such as the recording, may be worth a look. http://www.dr-tiller.com/elective.htm

Hi. Thanks Kel. But you still haven't given me any indication of how often these laws restricting post-viability abortions are stretched. Some of Tiller's abortions are post-viability. How often are the laws stretched or broken?

"Viability is not a set point in time". Is this not true? I'm not sure why you highlighted this.

And what about the difference between Canadian doctors and US doctors?

Asitis, they are stretched and broken every day.

You may not have had the luxery of hearing sickening story after sickening story at Jill's site over the last few years, but give it some time.

Or read her archives...the George Tiller posts have a lot of info on what they found in his records as to how many women were having abortions because they wanted to attend a rock concert, or they just were "mentally distressed" a day before delivering.

Or do some research into it on Google. I think you'll find a lot more than you expect if you actually research this with an open mind.

I'm not trying to convince you because you are not going to be convinced, no matter how many stories I show you. I challenge you to research the matter for yourself.

Thanks Bethany. It sounds like there is no data on this, but I'll look for some first-hand accounts as you suggested. Attend a rock concert so she got a post-viability abortion ? For real? And they got two doctors to approve this?

Betahny, no one has offered any answer to my question about the supposed difference between canada and the US. Can you? I find this situation strange:

Also, I gave a news story earlier here from canada from 2004 stating that post- viability abortion were not offered in Canada so women went to the US. Why is it, do you think, that in Canada, where there are no restrictions, doctors would not perform these abortions but in the US doctors will supposedly break the law to do them?
I'm not being difficult btw. I am honestly curious and want to know what is actually happening . Thanks for your input.

Posted by: asitis at March 24, 2009 10:45 AM

It sounds like there is no data on this,

From what I remember, yes there is...I believe it was actually documented- or there was hard evidence. When I have time, I'll try to find it.

And they got two doctors to approve this?

Oh Asitis....remember what you posted from Guttmacher?

"states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk."

Also, I gave a news story earlier here from canada from 2004 stating that post- viability abortion were not offered in Canada so women went to the US. Why is it, do you think, that in Canada, where there are no restrictions, doctors would not perform these abortions but in the US doctors will supposedly break the law to do them?
I'm not being difficult btw. I am honestly curious and want to know what is actually happening . Thanks for your input.

Maybe some Canadian doctors have more morals than some American doctors and individually are refusing to do them, regardless of the laws which allow them to do it? I don't actually know the answer to that question..wish I could help you there, but maybe Kel or someone else could give you a better answer. I don't have much knowledge of Canada period.

Oh good, I think I found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mviFMpy_sBU

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=70322

It's a long video but be sure to watch all of it.

Asitis, I would genuinely like to hear your answer to this that Elisabeth posed:

"Unless (which is impossible) Asitis can provide a medical condition for which death of the child is the ONLY possible way to save the mother's life, the issue IS settled and she has proven herself to be, again, not about facts, but about ideologies... abortion at any cost."

So can you provide such a medical condition?

By the way...if you are indeed honestly curious as you claim to be in your 10:45 post, I think you will at least answer the question above or try to. I really want to believe you're sincere, but the way you've avoided so many questions till now makes it very difficult to believe. Show me you mean it.

"Hi. Thanks Kel. But you still haven't given me any indication of how often these laws restricting post-viability abortions are stretched. Some of Tiller's abortions are post-viability. How often are the laws stretched or broken?"
************************************************

I'm wondering if you're expecting me to find some survey that chronicles the breaking of federal law, by its own physicians. ?? If Guttmacher were to publish that, geeze, wouldn't that be something? "Hey, our doctors break federal law, and here's how often they do it!" LOL...right. The only agencies I could think of who *might* research such a thing would surely be written off by pro-choicers as "biased", don'tcha think? ;)

I did find an interesting map of the US in regards to late term abortion restrictions, here: http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/states-restrictions-post-viability-abortions

You'll notice that the majority of states are listed as "states that restrict late-term abortions only when necessary to preserve the life or physical or mental health."

""Viability is not a set point in time". Is this not true? I'm not sure why you highlighted this."
*********************************************

I've seen differing figures on this, anywhere from 19 to 21 weeks for viability. However, my highlighted point goes along with the rest of what I highlighted...the fact that viability is SUBJECTIVE to the attending physician's judgment. This is pretty risky when that same doctor is set to profit from an abortion, in my opinion.

"And what about the difference between Canadian doctors and US doctors?
Posted by: asitis at March 24, 2009 6:59 PM"
******************************************

I'm sorry, but I don't live in Canada, so I'm not familiar with their laws or physicians.

And they got two doctors to approve this?

Oh Asitis....remember what you posted from Guttmacher?

"states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk."

Posted by: Bethany at March 24, 2009 11:10 PM

Betahny, I know this is on the first page of the Guttmacher report and it seems at odds with some of the states reuirements for post-viability. Some states do reuire 2 physians and some do not. All require threat to women's life and health. Was this woman's abortion post-viability? If it was, and the reason for it was to attend a rock concert, then even if she was in a state where a second pysician was not required for post-viability approval, then the doctor broke the law to perform the abortion. Really? For a rock concert?

You obviously didn't watch the video yet, nor read the article. It's documented, Asitis.

Answer the question posted to you at 11:26 this morning. Why is it that we are expected to answer all of your questions, yet you feel no need to answer a relevant one yourself?

That was me, obviously. My silly computer.

All require threat to women's life and health

Wrong. "OR" health. Not "and". That's the loophole, Asitis.

All require threat to women's life and health. Was this woman's abortion post-viability?

Of course she was, Asitis. George Tiller specializes in LATE TERM ABORTIONS.

FROM THE WEBSITE:

"At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable."

Maybe some Canadian doctors have more morals than some American doctors and individually are refusing to do them, regardless of the laws which allow them to do it? I don't actually know the answer to that question..wish I could help you there, but maybe Kel or someone else could give you a better answer. I don't have much knowledge of Canada period.

Posted by: Bethany at March 24, 2009 11:14 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't live in Canada, so I'm not familiar with their laws or physicians.

Posted by: Kel at March 25, 2009 12:06 AM

It's my understanding that there are no abortion laws in Canada. If the case is still the same as it was in 2004 when that article was written, doctors simply will not perform post-viability abortions. maybe Patricia can provide some insight into whether the sutiation has changed in the past few years there.

A small number of women go to the US to gate post-viability abortion. 30 from Quebec, 15 from Ontario. No data from other provinces but 97% of Canadian abortions were /are? before 16 weeks.

According to the article, the reasons for these abortions are severe health defects or teenage pregnancies.

You obviously didn't watch the video yet, nor read the article. It's documented, Asitis.

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 7:22 AM

No i haven't yet. I'm trying to address some of these scomments. I have to leave very shortly for a group run and will watch when I return and comment.

Asitis, I would genuinely like to hear your answer to this that Elisabeth posed:

"Unless (which is impossible) Asitis can provide a medical condition for which death of the child is the ONLY possible way to save the mother's life, the issue IS settled and she has proven herself to be, again, not about facts, but about ideologies... abortion at any cost."

So can you provide such a medical condition?

Posted by: Bethany at March 24, 2009 11:26 PM

Bethany, I am not in healthcare. I honestly am not the person to ask. I don't know whether there is or isn't a situation. All I am citing is the laws.

All require threat to women's life and health. Was this woman's abortion post-viability?

Of course she was, Asitis. George Tiller specializes in LATE TERM ABORTIONS.

FROM THE WEBSITE:

"At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable."

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 7:28 AM

Right. He performs late term abortions. Some are before viability and some are after. Was this case post-viability?

Another loophole is just plain falsifying records in order to obtain illegal abortions. Which is done all of the time.

As you can see by this investigative video, it's very easy for Tiller the Killer to get past Kansas specific laws on late term abortions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcq5nZynjn0

Answer the question posted to you at 11:26 this morning. Why is it that we are expected to answer all of your questions, yet you feel no need to answer a relevant one yourself?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2009 7:23 AM

Chill baby! There's alot to work through here from last night. You'll see I've done so. Now I have to run (literally) I'll be back later

Read this entire quote from Tiller's site:

"At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion. If you have visited another clinic or physician, we will ask for the results from a recent ultrasound.

Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you. "

Then, watch the video I posted above. Or watch the video above, then read this quote. Compare them and see what you think.

Bethany, I am not in healthcare. I honestly am not the person to ask. I don't know whether there is or isn't a situation. All I am citing is the laws.

What a cop out. You know that there is no medical condition which requires killing the baby to save the mother.

I am again speaking of late term abortion (7;45).
I am not a medical professional either and I know the answer to that question.

I honestly am not the person to ask.

Why then are you asking me questions about law when I'm not a lawyer?

There is no reason that you should have to be a medical professional to answer the question. It is a lousy excuse!

Also, don't you find it odd that you would advocate post-viability abortion when you are supposedly ignorant enough to not know whether a medical condition exists to make it necessary to do so. So you are advocating killing babies when you supposedly don't even know if it's EVER necessary! Wow.

Asitis, a scientist knows how to do research. Get to it!

Right. He performs late term abortions. Some are before viability and some are after. Was this case post-viability?

Asitis, that's the thing. According to their website, viability is subjective and up to the physician to define. Oh how convenient for Tiller!

Don't forget the videos I posted too. I've gotta run.

Read this entire quote from Tiller's site:

"At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion. If you have visited another clinic or physician, we will ask for the results from a recent ultrasound.

Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you. "

Then, watch the video I posted above. Or watch the video above, then read this quote. Compare them and see what you think.

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 7:42 AM

Hi Bethany. Actually I did better... I went directly to Tiller's website. He does pre and post viability abortions.

I'lll watch the vid as soon after I have my shower. ...........

Bethany, I am not in healthcare. I honestly am not the person to ask. I don't know whether there is or isn't a situation. All I am citing is the laws.

What a cop out. You know that there is no medical condition which requires killing the baby to save the mother.

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 7:45 AM

No. Quite honestly, I do NOT know this.

I honestly am not the person to ask.

Why then are you asking me questions about law when I'm not a lawyer?

There is no reason that you should have to be a medical professional to answer the question. It is a lousy excuse!

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 7:48 AM

Betahny I am not asking you legal questions. All I have done is show you the laws posted at Guttmacher, written in layman's terms.

I'm not a lawyer either.

Also, don't you find it odd that you would advocate post-viability abortion when you are supposedly ignorant enough to not know whether a medical condition exists to make it necessary to do so. So you are advocating killing babies when you supposedly don't even know if it's EVER necessary! Wow.

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 7:50 AM

Did I say I'm advocating it?

Did I say I'm advocating it?

Are you?

Betahny I am not asking you legal questions

And I am not asking you questions that a typical layperson cannot find out with a little bit of simple research.

Right. He performs late term abortions. Some are before viability and some are after. Was this case post-viability?

Asitis, that's the thing. According to their website, viability is subjective and up to the physician to define. Oh how convenient for Tiller!

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 7:59 AM

Well in the case of this women who supposedly had an abortion so she could go to a rock concert had the abortioit might be the case of being "how convenient" for her because viability may not have even been an issue. Tiller's website sats they do 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Along with the reason why she had the abortion perhaps there is also information on how far along she was. Maybe it was 15 weeks? 16 weeks? Any idea?

shower time....

Did I say I'm advocating it?

Are you?

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 9:40 AM

Ahhhhh. Sneaky girl ;)

No, you made the implication that you may not be against it and I responded to that. Which is it, Asitis? Are you for, or against 3rd trimester abortions?

No, you made the implication that you may not be against it and I responded to that. Which is it, Asitis? Are you for, or against 3rd trimester abortions?

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2009 9:47 AM

Ahhh, the million dollar question! Yet again!

Asitis, why so difficult to answer the question? Either you do or don't oppose them. Simple.

I've explained how many times? why I won't answer that question Bethany.

:)

You are embarrassed of your beliefs. That's okay. One day, maybe you'll be proud of what you believe in.

Me again.

You are embarrassed of your beliefs. That's okay. One day, maybe you'll be proud of what you believe in.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2009 10:28 AM

Go with that if it's what makles you feel good Bethany.

Some here would say I'm too proud already though! ;)

Bethany, I watched the video. Thanks. But I still don't have any idea on how often the law is stretched to allow for post-viability abortions. McHugh discusses the cases he reviewed that were based on psychiatric evaluations. Do these represent all the post-viability abortions? Were all of the cases post-viability? He stated that he saw no reason in these case severe enough to justify an abortion. I am curious: Is there ANY reason Dr McHugh would see as justification for abortion?

Ok, so this is from Wikipedia...which means I don't know how accurate it is. Here is what they have to say on post-viability abortions in the US:

"United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there is no exact data for the number of abortions performed after viability. In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year."

This is an estimate from 12 years ago, and it doesn't appear that too many people are busy counting the number. However, as I said before, this is Tiller's business, and he makes enough money from these procedures to donate heftily to pro-abort politicians. Job security.

Thanks Kel. That might make sense since the number from Canada seems to be very roughly around 100.

But it still doesn't say anything about the reasons for these abortions after 24 weeks.

"[Dr. George Tiller] presented the results of a study involving 2750 women aged between 10 and 45 who underwent abortions between 1994-97. The average gestational age was 27 weeks. The vast majority-2051-were performed because of either maternal health problems, with the remaining 699 abortions performed because of foetal abnormality." (Julie Ann Davies, "Abortionist Backs Sex Selection", The Age: 15 Nov 1999, Internet Edition)

Fetal abnormality, as it is used in this context, can include things like down's syndrome, hydrocephalus, cystic fibrosis, and other disabilities that are problematic, but not incompatible with meaningful life. Still, 3 out of 4 of the babies that were evaluated in the study were not abnormal.

This statistic is further confirmed in the Executive Summary for Fetal Indication Termination contained on Tiller's website. He claims that from January of 1989 to May of 2001 he aborted roughly 2,009 post-15 week fetuses for reasons of fetal abnormality. This means that, on average, only 167 of the post 15-week fetuses that he aborted each year were abnormal. As the data he provided to the state of Kansas indicates (with links below), he aborts roughly 600 post 22-week fetuses each year. Do the math.

Abortion advocates often deflect negative attention by insisting that late-term abortions are in the best interests of the babies that are aborted. They claim that if the babies are not "terminated", they will live lives scarred by illness. The truth is that the vast majority of the babies condemned to death by late-term abortion are healthy and capable of living meaningful lives.

There also exists a common misconception that late-term abortions are limited to medical emergencies. Nothing could be further from the truth. From 1998 until 2000, only one out of the 1168 abortions that Tiller performed after viability was done during a medical emergency. Upwards of 97% of his late-term patients weren't even from Kansas—they flew in from other states to have abortions that they had scheduled in advance.

The procedure that Tiller tends to prefer is called digoxin induction—a drawn-out, two to three day process in which the attending abortionist poisons the unborn baby with chemicals and then removes it by inducing labor. Clearly, this is not the kind of treatment that a competent obstetrician would administer during a medical emergency. If a woman in the final months of a wanted pregnancy found herself in a medical emergency that required a c-section or a labor induction, the last thing that she would want would be for her doctors to intentionally kill the baby with a fatal poison. What would be the point?

It is inconceivable that the poisoning of a viable unborn baby before an induction could be necessary to avert physical health damage to a pregnant woman. The death of a baby doesn't cure any physical illnesses. What, then, are the "health" problems that are leading to these abortions? Again, the answer lies in the nebulous concept of mental health—a loophole that has been tailor made to legalize elective abortion throughout the nine months of a pregnancy. The argument put forth by the abortion industry is that unwanted babies, if they are allowed to live, pose a threat to the psychological well-being of the mothers who will have to raise them. Consequently, they must die.

Let there be no confusion: the motivation behind these abortions is not the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. Once pregnancy has reached viability, doctors can perform abortion without engaging in an act of killing. The motivation behind these abortions is the destruction of an unwanted fetus, the elimination of an unwanted child. Tiller himself seems willing to concede the point. From his own mouth, "it is unplanned and unwanted motherhood that shipwrecks women's lives, not unplanned pregnancy." (George R. Tiller, Victory Rally and Declaration of Reproductive Independence, Wichita, Kansas, July 13, 2001)

Now, to the data:

From July 1998, when reporting began, until December 1998, Tiller performed 227 abortions after 22 weeks. 91 of these abortions were performed after the baby had reached viability. For each abortion, he was asked to indicate whether the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother. In each case, his answer was no.

During the same period, Tiller performed 58 "partial birth" abortions. All of these abortions were done on babies that had reached viability. Tiller was again asked to indicate, for each "partial birth" abortion (PBA), whether the procedure was done to preserve the physical health or the mental health of his patient. As expected, the answer given every time was mental health. Not one of his "partial birth" abortions was done for physical health reasons.

Read more here:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm

* Vital Statistics: Abortion 1998

From January of 1999 to December 1999, Tiller performed 574 abortions after 22 weeks. 302 of these abortions were performed on viable babies. All of the abortions were done for "health" reasons; not one was done to preserve the life of the mother.

During the same period, Tiller performed 182 abortions with the PBA method. Every single one of these abortions was performed after viability. As in the previous year, he was asked to indicate, for each patient , whether the procedure was done to protect the patient's physical health or the patient's mental health. His answer in every case was mental health.

Ultimately, in the 9 month period from January 1999 to September 1999, Tiller averaged 5 post-viable partial birth abortions per week. On average, he killed a viable unborn baby with partial birth abortion every day that he went to work. For verification and more information, scroll to pages 10-13 of the following PDF file:

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/99itop1.pdf

When considering the statistics on post-viability abortion, it is important to remember that they deal with "viability" as it is defined by an abortionist who is definitely no friend of unborn children. George Tiller is well-known for putting the unborn at a disadvantage when making determinations about their chances of survival outside the womb. His own former employee has testified to his deceptive tactics:

"Tiller [would determine the baby’s] BPD (biparietal diameter), which is a measurement of the babies head. Tiller gave me this simple explanation of what a BPD is: at this certain angle, the baby’s head is roughly egg shaped. The ordinary method of measurement is to go from the top of the egg to the bottom of the egg. That is the widest point of the angle. But Tiller said he goes from side to side on the egg and gets a much narrower measurement. He does not keep the photos in the medical records and he disposes of the babies, so there is no way to go back and see what he has done."

She was viciously attacked by the abortion industry, but, as the statistics verify, her statements were very close to the truth:
"I was there for about seven months, which is a fairly representative amount of time. In over 95% of these babies, perhaps more, there was nothing wrong at all. Nothing. And these were third trimester abortions."