Skip to comments.Saving Babies: A New Outlook
Posted on 01/30/2005 5:28:07 PM PST by w6ai5q37b
Abortion rights proponents are finding that their position is becoming even more indefensible because of the increased viability of small-sized infants.
Proponents of abortion have always maintained that abortion that is, killing babies is not murder, but a termination of fetal tissue. And the legal system has upheld that viewpoint ever since the Roe v. Wade decision, even to the point of accepting third-trimester abortions and partial-birth abortions. However, recent events have called negative attention to the logic of the pro-abortion stance.
On September 19, 2004, twins were born to Mahajabeen Shaik not an unusual occurrence of itself. But what was unusual was that the twins, Rumaisa and Hiba, weighed just 8.6 ounces and 1 pound 4 ounces at birth, when they were delivered by C-section after only 25 weeks and 6 days in their mothers womb (15 weeks before their normal delivery date). William MacMillan, the attending obstetrician, stated, We were a little surprised at just how small Rumaisa was, but pleased to see that she was vigorous and seemed to be getting a good start.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
The obscene number of abortions in America could be reduced dramatically, if not brought to 'zero' if federal and state law REQUIRED that any woman seeking an abortion must view an actual abortion being performed (using ultrasound to observe), and then she must watch her own baby being torn asunder on a monitor mounted right in front of her head.
Yes, there would be a few murderous beeotchs who would be unphased by such graphic displays, but there would be many more women who would be unable to go through the procedure, and that means fewer babies being murdered on the altar of Margaret Sanger and NOW's 'right to choose'.
I have friends who have had abortions and they really don't know what they've done. They have no idea....
"" It's just a clump of cells ""
How many people's minds could be changed by one picture. Planned parenthood advertises pictures of smiling women and there's no public outcry.
We show a picture of a dead baby, and it's obscene. The truth is obscene.
The sonogram: NARAL's worst nightmare.
I saw his neice on Television, and she said he was pro-life. And I thought it was a disgrace that Planned parenthood had a big photo of him on their website!
He accepted an award from them!
I read recently that he got that award before PP was publicly known to be pro-abortion. Apparently, they hid it well in the early years.
"I thought it was a disgrace that Planned parenthood had a big photo of him on their website"
It is a disgrace, and it was a disgrace to see PP use his picture in a video they have about how the "battle" for abortion "rights" was waged. Maybe his niece can speak louder on his behalf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.