Driving home from Arizona today, I listened to Mark Levin cover this story and play the tape of Planned Parenthood's testimony in Florida. When asked what PP's position was as to what should happen to a baby who is born alive during an unsuccessful abortion procedure, the PP representative, Alisa LaPolt Snow, just couldn't seem to come up with an answer. Her testimony begins at the 37:40 mark.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/29/planned-parenthood-rep-raises-eyebrows-in-testimony-on-bill-protecting-babies/?test=latestnews
Sadly, this kind of event has been known to happen. There is an ongoing trial now in Philadelphia of an abortion doctor who has not only done thousands of abortions, but has killed a few babies who made it onto the operating table alive.
http://news.yahoo.com/philadelphia-abortion-doctor-trial-ran-house-horrors-prosecutor-005128450.html
If you care to know what President Obama's thinking about this is, here is a tidbit.
http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama_baipa.htm
So even if a baby emerges from the womb alive, its fate still comes down to the "choice" of the mother? If you can say that about an infant born moments ago, when does that baby become a human being with rights that supersede its mother's choice? When it is a day old, a week old, a month old, a year old?
When did we lose our moral compass that we have reached this stage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The very basic premise and heart of the pro-abortion advocates' argument is that "A woman can do what she wants with HER OWN BODY."
Whenever I hear a basic misrepresentation by some side, I always go to the other side.
In this case, it is clear that the baby is NOT an extension of the mother's body. The baby has different DNA (!) which makes it a distinctive and different human being than the mother who is carrying it. If they were talking about clipping finger nails, which have the same DNA as the mother, they would have a case... but this is NOT the situation. It is clearly infanticide at the whim of a mother who decides that the baby is inconvenient. When did she acquire that right?
I don't know what the statistics are but I know that it is difficult to adopt babies because they are scarce. The unwanted babies should be placed in homes of people who want children.
It is clear that Planned Parenthood is making a profit on all these millions of abortions and they are therefor supportive of the practice.
Ah yes, the Party of Compassion ...
kills babies because they are inconvenient, a favorite constituency to be wooed, and besides, a profit can be make.
It is despicable!
Once the child is out of the mother's womb and breathing on its own (Also known as being born.) it is a separate human being. To kill it then it is then considered murder. This is not "HER OWN BODY", but another person's body.
BTW if a teenage girl was to do this she would get 20-life for murder. The doctor get a couple of thousand. it is disgusting.
Miggie is wrong, Findalis is right. DNA doesn't mean anything as long as a single cell, or clump of cells, is without independent consciousness or central nervous system, and entirely dependent on a connection to the mother's circulatory system to survive at all.
The boundary should be at 20 weeks, to be on the safe side, rather than the present reliance on the outdated notion of "quickening."
Sometimes it is necessary to destroy a post-20-week baby in order to save the mother's life. So be it. (In Jewish law, if the mother's life is in danger, abortion is MANDATORY).
But if a baby at that stage of development can be safely removed from the womb without damage to the mother, that's a delivery, not an abortion.
She can always give it up for adoption. She's already done the nine months of carrying it, so she can't avert that retroactively.
Post a Comment