By Wayne Staskal in Townhall.com...
Backdrop, by United Press International, September 27...
Health officials say cigarette packages sold in Britain will soon carry photos of throat cancer, rotting teeth and a corpse in a morgue.
The new packages are to be introduced next month to illustrate the health risks of smoking....
The graphic photos replace previous written warnings....
Sample of new packaging...
You know what I'm thinking. Why are graphic photos to deter smoking culturally acceptable but graphic photos of aborted babies to deter abortion taboo?
good question! At this point, taboo is not going to hold me back. Wouldn't it be funny though if my mom had to see that if she saw a pack of cigarettes. blood scares her. I couldn't even bring myself to show her what I meant about The silent scream in my video you put on here. I summarized it by telling her it shows the baby in the womb, so peaceful in the sanctuary and the doctor sticks the tube in their and the baby is disturbed and opens its mouth in a silent scream as the doctor (or abortionist) cracks the...
On Tuesday morning I will go to a Sarah Palin rally. I'm trying to think of a good sign to hold up...related to life.
This graphic picture of the effects of smoking makes a mockery of pro-lifers who display graphic signs against abortion.
There's a difference between choosing to somke and choosing to abort a baby. This man made a decision to smoke without expecting this terrible disease. If he chose to smoke with the intention of getting throat cancer, we'd think he was nuts. Unfortunately the disease caught up to him.
A woman who makes a decision to abort is expecting to take the life of the baby she sees in those graphic abortion pictures. Whether her abortion is first trimester, second, or third, it is still a baby who would develop into what is seen in the graphic pictures. There's no good excuse for making the choice to abort. Is a woman who aborts out of her mind?Posted by: Janet at October 5, 2008 5:37 PM
Actually Janet, I rather disagree with you here on a point. Most people today KNOW that smoking will lead to some kind of illness down the road. Lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema etc. The problem is that while smoking is a choice it is also an addiction and sometimes the pictures help, sometimes not. And of course, there are fewer and fewer places that one can smoke.
With abortion, yes, most women know they are killing their baby but because it is a hidden event - that is the baby is not laid out on the table and strangled in front of the mother or stabbed to death or hacked to pieces in front of her, most women don't have to confront the reality of what's happening. The abortionist and nurses do.
Maybe showing the women the ultrasound and then showing her the pieces of her baby afterwards, or the body. Maybe that's what's needed.
Of course the interesting think is that now society believes that people don't necessarily have a right any more to smoke. With abortion, it's generally held to be a right women have.
It also shows how fuzzy-headed and inconsistent modern liberals are -- you don't hear liberals speak of a "smoker's right to choose." If only liberals demonized Planned Parenthood for exploiting vulnerable pregnant women for $$$ (never mind unborn fetuses here) the way they demonize Big Tobacco, we would be an awful lot better off.Posted by: Stephen Mendelsohn at October 5, 2008 5:57 PM
I can't imagine the cigarette companies are toooo happy about those pics. Is it a law that the pictures have to be there or are the companies opting to put these pictures on there? I can't believe they would, as it might cause their sales to plummet DRAMATICALLY because those pics are sick. If I smoked, having to look at those pics every time I wanted to smoke would help me quit. Really fast.Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 5, 2008 6:05 PM
This would be an excuse for me to invest in a very lovely cigarette case.Posted by: xalisae at October 5, 2008 6:12 PM
Because the death from cancer kills a real person and a fetus is not actually alive - hence the term "pre-born".Posted by: Yo la Tango at October 5, 2008 6:17 PM
That would be assuming that a person is not alive before birth, and as someone who has carried not one but 2 persons in my body and felt them kick, squirm, and hiccough, I can tell you for certain that you are mistaken, yo la tango (ningunos cerebros).Posted by: xalisae at October 5, 2008 6:27 PM
Yo La Tango
They tell pregnant women not to smoke because it can lead to birth defects. The unborn child IS ALIVE -- heart begins to beat at 18 days after conception, and brain waves are detectable as early as 40 days after conception.
I wish my one aunt would quit smoking. She's VERY addicted. It affects her voice especially. And sadly one of my cousins has started to smoke. Her grandma, another aunt of mine, gave up smoking at least 10 years ago.
There was an anti smoking ad on the Speed Racer movie DVD. It was really good cause it showed a man who was affected by smoking, but not his lungs or throat.....
The problem people have with aborted baby pictures is that they CAN'T handle the TRUTH. The local abortuary was actually CLOSED on the day(s) when the truth truck came to town.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at October 5, 2008 6:37 PM
Yo la Tango: Because the death from cancer kills a real person and a fetus is not actually alive - hence the term "pre-born".
Yo!..Yo!! Would you mind passing that by us again (as well as by your own mind)...this time with the application of a little logic??Posted by: KC at October 5, 2008 6:41 PM
"a fetus is not actually alive"
This is the "most" false statement I've ever read here. Show me ANY bit of science to back this up. In the meantime, here are some quotes from embryology texts addressing the question.
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).
"the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.
"every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." (E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 5, 2008 7:32 PM
Yo La Tango
When your mama was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was resident in her utero?
yor bro ken
aka:lame brained knuckle draggin neanderthal
Yo La Tango, if it's not alive, removing it isn't an abortion.Posted by: Christina at October 5, 2008 8:05 PM
It is not a difficult question to answer. Just look at the post by bambino. If a=b and b=c, then a=c.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at October 5, 2008 8:06 PM
Insulting comments about me aside, I think that the term "pre-born" speaks for itself. I was almost aborted but you don't see me going all Gianna Jessen about it. There are many rational reasons to have an abortion, and simply because you cannot personnally accept those reasons doesn't mean you should dictate the conscience of others or personally demean those who want to make those descisions.
How many people would choose not to have an abortion if they knew the crap you'd talk about them simply because they did?Posted by: Yo La Tango at October 5, 2008 8:13 PM
I don't think that it's appropriate in either case. Both are graphic and unnecessary. People know what they're getting either way.Posted by: Erin at October 5, 2008 8:20 PM
"because you cannot personnally accept those reasons doesn't mean you should dictate the conscience of others"
This statement is self-refuting because by telling us not to dictate the conscience of others, you are dictating conscience to us.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 5, 2008 8:24 PM
Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 8:34 PM
Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 8:37 PM
yo la tango
My wife and daughters sometimes ask me for my opinion. So I explain what I believe and why. Then they want to argue with me. I am slow. A dear friend pointed out to me that they really did not want my opinion. They just wanted me to take the time to really listen to what they had to say.
Now I know, and I am sure you do too, that if you offer and opinion here, you are going to be challenged. Some choose not to be kind, some do. The question I asked is really not a trick question. A young lady in high school asked the question of a spokeslady from some reproductive rights group who came to address her class. The spokeslady, chose not to answer. I am sure you can understand why.
This teenage girl tongue tied an experienced pro-choice spokesperson. Other students in that class confirmed what she told me. From out of the mouth of babes (speaking figuratively of infants, not hot chicks) came wisdom that was not her own.Posted by: kbhvac at October 5, 2008 8:40 PM
There are some youtube clips from the black and white tv days where doctors are endorsing a particular brand of cigarettes, implying that the cigarettes offer some sort of health benefit to those who partake.
A couple of years ago in Dallas under the superb manipulation of mayor Laura Miller, the city council passed a smoking ban in private businesses. They exempted bars. Don't ask? Now they are considering banning smoking in the bars as well.
They might as well go ahead and ban alcohol too. I am sure an stronger arguement could be made for banning alcohol than cigarettes.
I am not advocating a return to prohibition, just pointing out another case of irrationality.
This a perfect example of a woman with an administrative gift run amuck. She wants to be a nanny to all who live or visit the fair city of Dallas, Texas.Posted by: kbhvac at October 5, 2008 8:52 PM
There's a big difference between alcohol and cigarettes. As an asthmatic, I can be near someone with alcohol on their breath, but being around someone while they're smoking requires emergency medical intervention for me. That's how most asthmatics are, and as asthma is increasing at an alarming rate, it makes since to ban smoking.
I don't advocate it: I don't really care. If somewhere allows smoking, I either don't go in or prepare by taking medication before hand. I don't think that banning smoking is the way to go, but just providing another perspective on this.Posted by: HumanAbstract at October 5, 2008 9:13 PM
On smoking - I have no problem with it being prohibited in family restaurants,and places that serve food, primarily, for example. But if it's the corner tavern, then come on....Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 9:14 PM
Not one of those pigs is wearing lipstick!
Now THIS is a pig...Posted by: mk at October 5, 2008 9:15 PM
The pro-abort claim that EVERYBODY knows what a fetus is and EVERYBODY understands EXACTLY what an abortion does to that fetus is quite amusing, especially when you consider that pro-aborts are always crying that kids are getting pregnant because they don't know how to swallow a birth control pill or put on a condom.
Yeah, swallowing a pill every day is so much more complicated than having a biological understanding of what an unborn child is.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 5, 2008 9:15 PM
Didn't we follow "common law" in 1803, and wasn't common law the same that the Engish followed?Posted by: mk at October 5, 2008 9:16 PM
I love how when Bobby pointed out that a fetus IS alive, yo lo suddenly started bloviating about dictating a persons conscience.
No one was even commenting on the morality of it.
She claimed that children in the womb were not "alive". We proved they were, and suddenly we're telling her how to live her life...go figure.
Fred and Barney burn one.Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 9:22 PM
Think of a man and take away reason and accountability. That is Laura Miller.
Hey I am not advocating banning anything. But alcohol is addictive to some people just like nicotine. Nicotine does not impair peoples response time. Now the drunk who is trying to drive, light his ciagarette and talk on his/her cell phone will really ruin your day if you get in their way.
But rest easy if you live in or visit Dallas, Texas, talking on cell phones is being criminalized incrementally. Right now it is only illegal in school zones.Posted by: kbhvac at October 5, 2008 9:25 PM
Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 9:28 PM
MK, Olivia rocks.
Didn't we follow "common law" in 1803, and wasn't common law the same that the Engish followed?
Yes, we (Americans) followed it, but the English changed things that year with ol' Lordy Ellenborough's act. Prior to that, it was indeed common law in England.Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 9:31 PM
KB, quite a few states have it illegal to drive and talk on a handheld cellphone.
Now the drunk who is trying to drive, light his ciagarette and talk on his/her cell phone will really ruin your day if you get in their way.
Could be, though I know a lot of guys who can drive better after having a few drinks than a good bit of the driving I've seen done by people (apparently) only talking on the phone.Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 9:33 PM
So in 1803 weren't we still following it? When England changed, didn't we?Posted by: mk at October 5, 2008 9:41 PM
I have read of studies that indicate that people who are talking on a cell phone and driving are as impaired as a driver who is over the legally allowable blood alcohol limit. Women seem to have a superior inate ability to multi task, but even they can't seem to handle talking on a cell phone and driving at the same time. It is like their hair turns blonde while they are having a phone conversation. Most men are worse.Posted by: kbhvac at October 5, 2008 9:46 PM
The founder of of RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds, R.J., 58, emphysema. (That's a smoking related illness).
Does anyone remember the anti drug commercials with the eggs in the frying pans? "This is your brain" and "this is your brain on drugs?"?
Maybe they should make one that says,
"This is the lungs of a healthy non smoker," and then show one of a long time smoker diagnosed with lung cancer or emphysema.
There's also second hand smoke -- that affects me a LOT (hard to breathe, but I don't have Asthma, so I'm very lucky there) so I have to do my best to avoid smokers (which isn't always easy).
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at October 5, 2008 9:51 PM
Did you survive a failed abortion attempt like Gianna Jessen? Is that why you compare yourself to her or did you birth mom just change here mind or something?Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 5, 2008 9:51 PM
Has anyone else pointed out this isn't a U.S. law yet?
To be honest, I dont know how easily a law such as this would pass here. Haven't they tried something similar before that failed to pass?
As for smoking in general-
its up to each individual. Everyone should be informed of the risks (via Surgeon General's warning and/or health class education)Posted by: Dan at October 5, 2008 10:34 PM
MK: So in 1803 weren't we still following it?
Yes, MK, we were still under common law then.
When England changed, didn't we?
No, there was this whole Revolution thingy and in the end we didn't have to follow England anymore.Posted by: Doug at October 6, 2008 12:27 AM
I have read of studies that indicate that people who are talking on a cell phone and driving are as impaired as a driver who is over the legally allowable blood alcohol limit. Women seem to have a superior inate ability to multi task, but even they can't seem to handle talking on a cell phone and driving at the same time.
KB, I drive a lot. Been to probably 35 - 40 states in the last year. One thing that would really help is just putting the cruise control on.
I don't know about men being worse than women - it seems that women slow down more when talking on the phone, and there they are....in the fast lane. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but it's based on seeing a ton of people talking on the phone while driving.
On being over the limit for alcohol - tolerance makes a huge difference. Heck, the legal limit in quite a few states is .08%, which isn't many drinks for most people, and I know several people who after getting to .1% or so - you couldn't tell they had been drinking from their driving. Heck, if anything they know they have to watch it, and they slow down and don't take the chances they do when sober. Not to advocate drinking & driving but the gain in safety due to the changed attitude can equal or outweigh the loss in driving ability from the booze in these cases.Posted by: Doug at October 6, 2008 12:34 AM
No, there was this whole Revolution thingy and in the end we didn't have to follow England anymore.
Okay, so maybe that wasn't the brightest question...I guess what I meant was, since there were no abortion laws written until 1820 in the US, what law were we following up til then? Wasn't it common law?Posted by: mk at October 6, 2008 6:05 AM
Or were we following the common law that was in place BEFORE Lord Whoosywhatsy? I mean, when England changed, did we not change with them? Were we following pre-Lordwhatsitwhosit common law?Posted by: mk at October 6, 2008 6:06 AM
"I love how when Bobby pointed out that a fetus IS alive, yo lo suddenly started bloviating about dictating a persons conscience.
No one was even commenting on the morality of it.
She claimed that children in the womb were not "alive". We proved they were, and suddenly we're telling her how to live her life...go figure."
MK, that reminds me of a story that the pro-life speaker Scott Klusendroff recalls. I may have some of the details wrong, but I think Kathy Ireland was on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and they were talking about abortion. Kathy told Bill how she had always been pro-choice, but when he husband (or maybe fiancee) was in medical school, he learned about and told her how species reproduce after their own kind i.e. cats only have cats, dogs only have dogs, humans only have humans (I forget what this is called; there is a medical term for it). Anyway, she realized that from the moment of conception, the zygote is a human being, just like you or me, only less developed. She then said that because science now confirms the humanity of the unborn, destroying it would be murder.
So she said all of this, discussed the science behind it all, and Bill Maher's response was "Well, that's your view." As if the science she had been discussing was just a matter of opinion or personal "truth." But what do you expect from the guy?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 6, 2008 7:25 AM
A couple of observations here: First, I want to thank Yo la Tango for giving us a perfect example of the completely, totally dishonest mantras and slogans used by the proaborts to justify elective abortions. Since Yo la is intelligent enough to post here, there is no reason to suspect that s/he doesn't know that unborn babies are alive, unless they have died in the womb. Thanks, Yo la!
Second, I want to thank Doug for all his contributions to the thread. Not that I agree with any of them, but in sheer numbers he has contributed a lot. Thanks, Doug.Posted by: Doyle at October 6, 2008 9:03 AM
"She then said that because science now confirms the humanity of the unborn, destroying it would be murder."
Bobby, the first part is "science" the second part is "opiion."Posted by: Hal at October 6, 2008 11:08 AM
opinion.Posted by: Hal at October 6, 2008 12:10 PM
the unborn child is an innocent bystander -- does every baby that's conceived "At the wrong time" deserve to be aborted?Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 6, 2008 1:21 PM
This common law discussion brings to mind the idea of a "common-law wife". If a man and woman were living together long enough, they were considered married. That's how it used to be, anyways. Does this still hold true in the courts?Posted by: Janet at October 6, 2008 1:49 PM
Janet, it varies by state. In states that recognize common law marriages, it requires more than living together for a length of time, you actually have to hold yourself out as married to the world.Posted by: Hal at October 6, 2008 3:27 PM
since there were no abortion laws written until 1820 in the US, what law were we following up til then? Wasn't it common law?
MK, we followed it until 1829 in NY and later in the other states, from what I've seen.Posted by: Doug at October 6, 2008 6:50 PM
Doyle, you're welcome, and right back atcha. You're a unique presence here.Posted by: Doug at October 6, 2008 9:08 PM
Liz: does every baby that's conceived "At the wrong time" deserve to be aborted?
No, and if you find somebody that thinks there is "deserving" to be aborted, then you do have somebody who is actually "pro-abortion."
It's not a matter of "deserving" or not like that, from a Pro-Choice perspective. It's up to the woman.Posted by: Doug at October 6, 2008 9:19 PM
Janet, it varies by state. In states that recognize common law marriages, it requires more than living together for a length of time, you actually have to hold yourself out as married to the world.
Posted by: Hal at October 6, 2008 3:27 PM
How so? Like having children together? life insurance beneficiaries... a common household.... common bank accounts....anything else come to mind? Just curious.Posted by: Janet at October 6, 2008 10:35 PM
MK, we followed it until 1829 in NY and later in the other states, from what I've seen.
Well that would mean that from 1803 on, abortion was illegal at all times. A felony after quickening/a misdemeanor before...
So 205 years stands.Posted by: mk at October 7, 2008 7:52 AM
"MK, we followed it until 1829 in NY and later in the other states, from what I've seen."
Well that would mean that from 1803 on, abortion was illegal at all times. A felony after quickening/a misdemeanor before.
So 205 years stands.
Oh my goodness, MK.
No, it means that in New York, it was illegal for 141 years. Under common law, abortion was not "illegal at all times."
For other states, it would have been illegal from the time they set down their own statute making it illegal until they either rescinded it, or to when Roe was decided, and from what I've seen that may be as little as 93 years.
Posted by: Doug at October 7, 2008 9:42 AM
Yo La Tango, if it's not alive, removing it isn't an abortion.
Posted by: Christina at October 5, 2008 8:05 PM
Posted by: Yo La Tango
at October 7, 2008 3:55 PM
My point exactly - its a harmless medical procedure.
But if it is alive, removing it is an abortion. Then it is a harmful medical procedure.
I.e., induced abortion is a harmful medical procedure.Posted by: Jon at October 12, 2008 12:09 PM
An abortion is supposed to end a pregnancy, and that's what it does. Jon, you being in favor of it or not does not alter that.Posted by: Loris Archetravian at October 12, 2008 9:42 PM
I was following Yo La Tango's logic.Posted by: Jon at October 13, 2008 10:36 PM