Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]
CatholicEducation.org ^ | May, 2006 | Ted Harvey

Posted on 06/28/2006 11:25:07 AM PDT by Salvation


Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor
   TED HARVEY


She sings the anthem to applause, then her secret is revealed to stunned silence.

Gianna Jessen

I want to share with you an awesome experience I had in the Colorado House of Representatives on May 8. It is a humbling experience to look back and realize that God used me to play a role in His divine orchestration.

I was leaving the House chambers for the weekend when our Democrat speaker of the House announced that the coming Monday would be the final day of this year's General Assembly. He went on to state that there were still numerous resolutions on the calendar which we would need to be addressed prior to the summer adjournment. Interestingly, he specifically mentioned that one of the resolutions we would be hearing was being carried by the House Majority Leader Alice Madden, honoring the 90th anniversary of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

As a strong pro-life legislator I was disgusted by the idea that we would pass a resolution honoring this 90-year legacy of genocide. I drove home that night wondering what I could say that might pierce the darkness during the debate on this heinous resolution.

On Saturday morning, I took my 8-year-old son up to the mountains to go white-water rafting. The trip lasted all day. As we were driving home, exhausted and hungry, I remembered that I had accepted an invitation to attend a fundraising dinner that night for a local pro-life organization. One of my most respected mentors had personally called me several weeks earlier and asked me to attend, so I knew I'd have to clean up and head over.

After our meal, the executive director of the organization introduced the keynote speaker. I looked up and saw walking to the stage a handicapped young lady being assisted to the microphone by a young man holding a guitar.

Her name was Gianna Jessen.

Gianna said "Hello," welcomed everyone, and then sang three of the most beautiful Christian songs I have ever heard.

She then began to give her testimony. When her biological mother was 17 years old and seven and a half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion. As God would have it, the abortion failed and a beautiful 2-pound baby girl was brought into the world. Unfortunately, she was born with cerebral palsy and the doctors thought that she would never survive. The doctors were wrong.

Imagine the timing! A survivor of a Planned Parenthood abortion arrived in town just days before the Colorado House of Representatives was to celebrate Planned Parenthood's "wonderful" work.

As I listened to Gianna's amazing testimony, the Lord inspired me to ask her if she could stay in Denver until Monday morning so that I could introduce her on the floor of the House and tell her story. Perhaps she could even begin the final day's session by singing our country's national anthem!

To my surprise she said she would seriously consider it. If she were to agree, she wanted her accompanying guitarist to stay as well. A lady standing in line behind me waiting to meet Gianna overheard our conversation and said that she would be willing to pay for the guitarist's room. Gianna then said that she would think about it.


As I was driving home from the banquet, my cell phone rang. It was Gianna, and she immediately said, "I'm in, let's ruin this celebration." Praise God!

When Monday morning came, I awoke at 6 a.m. to write my speech before heading to the Capitol. As I wrote down the words, I could sense God's help and I knew that this was going to be a powerful moment for the pro-life movement.

Following a committee hearing, I rushed into the House chambers just as the opening morning prayer was about to be given. Between the prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, I wrote a quick note to the speaker of the House explaining that Gianna is an advocate for cerebral palsy. I took the note to the speaker and asked if I could have my friend open the last day of session by singing the national anthem. Without any hesitation the speaker took the microphone and said, "Before we begin, Representative Harvey has made available for us Gianna Jessen to sing the national anthem."

Gianna sang the most amazing rendition of The Star Spangled Banner that you could possibly imagine. Every person in the entire chamber was completely still, quiet and in awe of this frail young lady's voice.

Due to her cerebral palsy, Gianna often loses her balance, and shortly after starting to sing she grabbed my arm to stabilize herself, and I could tell that she was shaking. Suddenly, midway through the song, she forgot the words and began to hum and then said, "Please forgive me; I am so nervous." She then immediately began singing again and every House member and every guest throughout the chambers began to sing along with her to give her encouragement and to lift her up.

As I looked around the huge hall I listened to the unbelievable melody of Gianna's voice being accompanied by a choir of over 100 voices. I had chills running all over my body, and I knew that I had just witnessed an act of God.

As the song concluded the speaker of the House explained that Gianna has cerebral palsy and is an activist to bring awareness to the disease. "Let us give her a hand not only for her performance today, but also for her advocacy work," he said. The chamber immediately exploded into applause she had them all in the palm of her hand.


The speaker then called the House to order, and we proceeded as usual to allow members to make any announcements or introductions of guests. For dramatic effect, I waited until I was the last person remaining before I introduced Gianna.

As I waited for my turn, I nervously paced back and forth praying to God that he would give me the peace, confidence and the courage necessary to pull off what I knew would be one of the most dramatic and controversial moments of my political career.

While I waited, a prominent reporter from one of the major Denver newspapers walked over to Gianna and told her that her rendition captured the spirit of the national anthem more powerfully than any she had ever heard before.

Finally, I was the last person remaining. So, I proceeded to the microphone and began my speech.


At this point the chamber exploded into applause which lasted for 15-to-20 seconds. Gianna had touched their souls.


"Members, I would like to introduce you to a new friend and hero of mine — her name is Gianna Jessen. She is visiting us today from Nashville, Tennessee, where she is an accomplished recording artist.

"She has cerebral palsy and was raised in foster homes before being adopted at the age of four.

"She was born prematurely and weighed only 2 pounds at birth. She remained in the hospital for almost three months. A doctor once said she had a great will to live and that she fought for her life. Eventually she was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care.

"Because of her cerebral palsy, her foster mother was told that it was doubtful that she would ever crawl or walk. She could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of her foster mother, she eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. Shortly before her fourth birthday, she began to walk with leg braces and a walker.

"She continued in physical therapy and after a total of four surgeries, she was able to walk without assistance.

"She still falls sometimes, but she says she has learned how to fall gracefully after falling for 29 years.

"Two years ago, she walked into a local health club and said she wanted a private trainer. At the time her legs could not lift 30 pounds. Today she can leg press 200 pounds.

"She became so physically fit that she began running marathons to raise money and awareness for cerebral palsy. She just returned last week from England where she ran in the London Marathon. It took her more than eight-and-a-half hours to complete. They were taking down the course by the time she made it to the finish line. But she made it, nonetheless. With bloody feet and aching joints, she finished the race.

"Members would you help me recognize a modern-day hero Gianna Jessen?"

At this point the chamber exploded into applause which lasted for 15-to-20 seconds. Gianna had touched their souls.


Ironically, Alice Madden, the majority leader and sponsor of the Planned Parenthood resolution, walked over to Gianna and congratulated her.

As the applause began to die down, I raised my hand to be recognized one more time.

"Mr. Speaker, members, if you would allow me just a few more moments I would appreciate your time.


"My name is Ted Harvey, not Paul Harvey, but, please, let me tell you the rest of the story."


"My name is Ted Harvey, not Paul Harvey, but, please, let me tell you the rest of the story.

"The cause of Gianna's cerebral palsy is not because of some biological freak of nature, but rather the choice of her mother.

"You see when her biological mother was 17-years-old and 7-and-a-half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek a late-term abortion. The abortionist performed a saline abortion on this 17-year-old girl. This procedure requires the injection of a high concentration of saline into the mother's womb, which the fetus is then bathed in and swallows, which results in the fetus being burned to death, inside and out. Within 24 hours the results are normally an induced, still-born abortion.

"As Gianna can testify, the procedure is not always 100 percent effective. Gianna is an aborted late-term fetus who was born alive. The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.

"Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…"

BANG! The gavel came down.

Just as I was finishing the last sentence of my speech — the climax of the morning — the speaker of the House gaveled me down and said, "Representative Harvey, I will allow you to continue your introduction, but not for the purposes of debating a measure now pending before the House."

At which point I said,

"Mr. Speaker, I understand. I just wanted to put a face to what we are celebrating today."

Silence.

Deafening silence.

I then walked back to my chair shaking like a leaf. The Democrats wouldn't look at me. They were fuming. It was beautiful. I have been in the Legislature for five tough years, and this made it all worthwhile.

The House majority leader wouldn't talk to me the rest of the day.

Was it because I introduced an abortion survivor, or was it because we touched her soul? She could congratulate an inspirational cerebral palsy victim and advocate, but was outraged when she discovered that the person she congratulated was also an abortion survivor.

The headline in The Denver Post the next day read "Abortion Jab Earns Rebuke." The majority leader is quoted as saying, "I think it was amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics."

Yes, Representative Madden, Gianna Jessen is a human being. She was when she was in her mother's womb, and she was when she sang the national anthem on the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives.

The paper went on to quote Gianna, stating she was glad I told her story.

"We need to discuss the humanity of it. I'm glad to be able to speak up for children in the womb," she said. "If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?"

All I can say is, "Glory to God!" He orchestrated it all, every minute of it, and I was so honored to have been chosen to play a part. May we all continue to be filled with and to fight for the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Ted Harvey. "Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor." CERC.

Reprinted with permission of Ted Harvey.

THE AUTHOR

Ted Harvey is Assistant Minority Leader in the Colorado House of Representatives and is currently running for the State Senate. Visit his web site here. E-mail him here.

Copyright © 2006 Ted Harvey
 



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionondemand; abortionsurvivor; birthdefect; birthdefects; catholiclist; cerc; cerebralpalsy; childmurder; cultureofdeath; genocide; gianna; giannajessen; infanticide; jessen; life; permanentsolution; plannedparenthood; pp; prolife; qualitylife; qualityoflife; righttolife; salineabortion; selfishact; survival; survivor; taxdollarsatwork; temporaryproblem; youpayforthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-279 next last
To: MHGinTN; JWinNC

Well MHGinTN you've nailed it. Sneaky Christians don't hold much water with me.


201 posted on 06/29/2006 12:01:12 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
Have you behaved in a deceitful manner? Will you deserve the condemnation that is sure to follow from the other members of the congregation?

Tricky. In this context, yes I have, and yes I do. That's simply because in my church, I can not innocently present someone as 'Christian' who teaches that 'sin is not sin'. In our parlance, "Christian" and "unrepentant lesbian" would be mutually exclusive - unlike "CP advocate" and "abortion survivor".

But it's a straw man, anyway - and besides, if I should engage in such shenanigans, OUR pastor would probably just use it to draw a contrast betweed the sin and the sinner - and dress me down in the parking lot afterwards. It's the band I'd have to worry about...
202 posted on 06/29/2006 12:13:59 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
Sneaky Christians don't hold much water with me.

"sneaky" Jesus, included? Going to places secretly, not announcing himself as the Son of God, letting people think he was going to help overthrow Rome, being all cagey when Pilate was questioning him...man, what a deceiver.
203 posted on 06/29/2006 12:19:47 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

LB is just so far superior that LB can misrepresent what happened and should not be called on it. Must be thin air up there in superior land.


204 posted on 06/29/2006 12:25:18 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
"See my post #195. Would the scenario described there be a problem for you?"

I don't think that is a valid comparison, but I'll answer anyway.

Is it the usual and accepted procedure for members to make announcements at that point in time without permission or prior knowledge of the subject?

If yes, then I would have no basis to call it deceitful. (I could easily agrue that it is wrong on other grounds, but that's another matter.)

jw

205 posted on 06/29/2006 12:27:40 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

That was so good it's got to be fattening. I'd have loved to see the face of every Commie Democrap in the place.


206 posted on 06/29/2006 12:28:50 PM PDT by exile (Mrs. Exile - "Yes you're the greatest husband ever, now put on some pants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

I don't concur with your interpretation. Isn't it dark under that basket of yours?


207 posted on 06/29/2006 12:32:46 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
Are you a Christian? Do you attend church regularly? What denomination? SHOULD any of these answers matter to how I perceive your logic? MIGHT they?

I'm arguing that Christians should be honest and aboveboard in all their actions. Do you think that's doctrinally unsound? Do you think that Christians should pretend to be something they're not so as to gain an advantage? Would you seek to dismiss my skill as an engineer if you found out that I'm a member of the "wrong" denomination?

Conspring to hijack a proceeding for your own agenda is not honest and aboveboard. Try hijacking a thread on FreeRepublic and see if it gets you anywhere with the other people on the thread.
208 posted on 06/29/2006 12:38:33 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I argue that you are misrepresenting what happened. As for me "not being called on it" we're at 208 posts (not all responding to me, of course) and counting.


209 posted on 06/29/2006 12:41:11 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
I'm arguing that Christians should be honest and aboveboard in all their actions. Do you think that's doctrinally unsound?

No.

Do you think that Christians should pretend to be something they're not so as to gain an advantage?

No - and that didn't happen here. She is a CP advocate. She's probably also many other things which weren't mentioned, but which would not have drawn rebuke had Harvey mentioned them instead. It's only one "inconvenient truth" which angered some.

Would you seek to dismiss my skill as an engineer if you found out that I'm a member of the "wrong" denomination?

No - but even if I would, are you obligated to volunteer that information if I don't ask? (You haven't yet, by the way, and I _DID_ ask.)

Conspring to hijack a proceeding for your own agenda is not honest and aboveboard.

Conspiracy, hijacking - nothing like peppering your argument with a little al Qaida language. Doesn't make it true, however. Harvey spoke at the time he was allowed to speak. That's hardly "hijacking".

Try hijacking a thread on FreeRepublic and see if it gets you anywhere with the other people on the thread.

Non sequitur.
210 posted on 06/29/2006 12:51:35 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: JWinNC

Why is the comparison invalid?

Suppose, having sponsored the performer, it were your assigned role to introduce the performance and then thank the performer afterwards? If you must, take it out of the sanctuary and put it in some other church-related setting that is more extemporaneous than the regular service.

If you did this, you would have with malice aforethought disrupted a church meeting simply because you disagree with the doctrine expressed at the meeting. Isn't that what Harvey did at the Colorado legislature?


211 posted on 06/29/2006 12:58:02 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

Well, argue all you like, LB, but the simple truth is the Rep. didn't hijack anything, and in fact had every right to make the remarks he made and was about to make when the chair cut him off. That you keep trying to misrepresent that fact shows us all a great deal about your style ... as a last worder, you may now have the last word. Try to be fully honest with it.


212 posted on 06/29/2006 1:04:34 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

Okay you caught me, truth is out. I had too much fun in my school years.


213 posted on 06/29/2006 1:13:38 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
What in the world? standing up for homosexuality and standing against abortion are totally different.

I am beginning to wonder? What kind of "Christian" church do you associate yourself with?
214 posted on 06/29/2006 1:18:36 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
”Why is the comparison invalid?

I think it’s invalid on several grounds… going into the “apples and oranges” of it would throw the current discussion off track.

" sponsored the performer, it were your assigned role to introduce the performance and then thank the performer afterwards?"

Then I would certainly be within my bounds to introduce and then thank the performer. In the process, if I announce she is a “homosexual,” that’s going to make a lot of folk uncomfortable but if she is, then she is and I think I would still be within my bounds. That’s not a deception. (It could very well be disruptive, but that’s not relevant.) …this is all taking us off track …the difference between a church and a legislative body is huge.

"If you must, take it out of the sanctuary and put it in some other church-related setting that is more extemporaneous than the regular service."

Instead of trying to agree on what is a valid comparison and what is not, why don’t we stick with what actually and precisely happened?

"If you did this, you would have with malice aforethought disrupted a church meeting simply because you disagree with the doctrine expressed at the meeting. Isn't that what Harvey did at the Colorado legislature?"

No, that is not what he did... not even close as I see it. He made a point… a very strong point using the rules and procedures they have in place. He did not deceive. He did not disrupt. If there was an improper disruption, it was not due to him, but rather to those who are offended by the mere mention that this woman survived an abortion at the hands of PP.

jw

215 posted on 06/29/2006 1:36:36 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom; JWinNC
p.s. (JWinNC: Post originally to beezdotcom. If you don't like my analogy in post #215 then use the hypothetical in this post)

No - and that didn't happen here. She is a CP advocate. She's probably also many other things which weren't mentioned, but which would not have drawn rebuke had Harvey mentioned them instead. It's only one "inconvenient truth" which angered some.

He was given the floor on the basis and premise that he would introduce a CP advocate about which there is no controversy or disagreement. If she had been suffering from some life shortening disease (CP is not?), and if it had been the Alabama legislature and if he had introduced her and then said "Oh, by the way, she's a lesbian with a partner and two children and how can you possibly think of depriving her survivors of their rights?" because he was against the Defense of Marriage legislation that was certain to be passed later in the day, well, that would have been wrong too. In that case it would have been all the leftists going "SWEET - they tried to stop him but he got it in" and some in FR would be condeming him. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored. All I'm saying that we must all follow the rules, especialy in something as important as a legislature, or the whole thing falls apart. And just because we feel that God's on our side and we're not getting what we want doesn't give us the right to do what Harvey did.

No - but even if I would, are you obligated to volunteer that information if I don't ask? (You haven't yet, by the way, and I _DID_ ask.)

You go first. Then, instead of responding to your arguments, I can take the easy way out and dismiss you out of hand for being a member of some "doctrinally incorrect" group that are not "real" Christians. Are sneaky tricks good doctrine in some denominations? Please let me know so I can avoid them just like you'd avoid me if I'm the "wrong kind". Maybe the solution to our troubles is to have all the Christians with law degrees pretend to renounce their faith and then join the ACLU and NARL. Once we have enough people in positions of power on the inside we can launch a coup from within and destroy the organization. Would that violate some tenet of Christianity? "I'm a mole for Jesus!" would make it all OK?

And you've got it backwards. Supposing, as engineers, we were discussing whether a bridge were properly designed and I supported my argument with "I'm a Christian in a state of grace and so my calculations are better than yours." I would have introduced my faith into a situation where it did not belong.

As an aside, I've had a sincere Christian engineer tell me that he prayed over his design and, on that basis, he was certain that it was right. I had to disabuse him of that notion. Faith will not keep a bridge from falling down. If there are no atheists in foxholes then there are not so many in engineering labs either because a whole lot of praying goes on but in the end, the bridge stands or falls.

Conspiracy, hijacking - nothing like peppering your argument with a little al Qaida language. Doesn't make it true, however. Harvey spoke at the time he was allowed to speak. That's hardly "hijacking".

The word "hijacking" was meant as a direct precursor to the common and universal "highjacking a thread" reference that followed.

Try hijacking a thread on FreeRepublic and see if it gets you anywhere with the other people on the thread.

Non sequitur.

Not at all. If people have congregated to discuss topic "A" you don't break in and insist they discuss what you want to discuss. You start a new thread. The difference is that with FR you are free to come and go as you please and many threads can happen simultaneously. In a legislature you can't go "start a new thread", they have rules of order, and Harvey couldn't handle that they didn't want to talk about what he wanted to talk about. So he lied to them, got the floor, and then talked about what he wanted to talk about. Frankly, the high merit of what he wanted to talk about is completely irrelevant to me because EVERYONE thinks what they want to talk about is in the same category.
216 posted on 06/29/2006 2:14:00 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
No offense, but that's the kind of arguing that Liberals do.

What? Just because I asked him why he's so upset? And you certainly didn't address the other questions I asked either:

Do you think the Holy Apostles cared one whit if they caused an agitation? Do you think Jesus cared that he stirred up the scribes and Pharisees?

I think homicide is just as evil as lying, and I can imagine cases where homicide is licit -- for example: I have very good reason to believe that that spare tire you're toting is actually a suicide bomb -- VERY GOOD reason.

Um.. I saw in a recent post where you have converted to the Church. Is your conversion recent? I don't mean to offend you, but the Church doesn't agree with you about lying being just as evil as homicide. Homicide and abortion are considered as crimes crying out to Heaven for vengenance. Lying is not on the same plane.

Catechism:

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

I hardly think Mr. Harvey's actions rose to the level of injuring anyone nor did he do grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

Abortion and homicide on the other hand:

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

On the other hand, Harvey confronted those who support what the Church has deemed a criminal practice. As I said earlier, they are aiding and abetting a crime. Who bears the greater sin here? Harvey or the Democrats? His sin was venial, theirs is mortal!

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

I hope that has changed your mind that lying is just as evil as homicide.

217 posted on 06/29/2006 2:15:57 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

It was a hypothetical. I'm not standing up for homosexuality. But if it's your own ox being gored you apparently have a different standard of behavior.


218 posted on 06/29/2006 2:17:33 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: red irish
I have told this story before. Once I met a beautiful 16 year old girl was was a result of a rape and her mother did not want to kill her own daughter even though what happened to her was very ugly. Every once in a while I think of this beautiful girl and then wonder how many other young women and men did not get the chance to live because of someone else's evil act. That beautiful girl did nothing to bring on a death sentence but so many do every day. She started out as just the being the potential of life,Gods gift.For me as a christian I believe life is given by a man and a woman and the blessing of God. Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

It's a story worth repeating and thanks for sharing as I am fairly new here and haven't heard it before.

219 posted on 06/29/2006 2:19:35 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Are you now going so far as to say that I have been dishonest up to this point? Please point out where I have been so. If anything I have been too honest.

Read my post #216 and see if you agree that with a different legislative issue at stake Harvey's behaviour would have met with far less approval from the people in this thread.
220 posted on 06/29/2006 2:23:54 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
What? Just because I asked him why he's so upset?

Yes, precisely that. It's almost a "stopped beating your wife" question, and even worse, in a way, because it diverts the conversation away from the matter at hand to the psychology of LB, which doesn't strike me as especially relevant. It seems calculated to put him on the defensive, which may help you win a logomachy, but won't necessarily advance reason or truth.

Actually what I said was that homicide is just as evil as lying (you put it the other way around -- is "just as evil" commutative?), and I probably should have said "at least as evil". You failed to change my mind, but you did change my language, so that ain't bad.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

But let me say this. If you paid attention to what I was saying, you would have seen that I was arguing against LB. My argument structure was:

  1. There are times when killing humans is licit, though it is always an evil.
  2. If you (in the the sense of "you, my interlocutor", not you yourself) want to argue that one should never lie under any circumstances, how much more would you have to argue that one should never kill a person under any circumstances?
  3. And if you argue that, then your suggestion that it is licit to abort a person who cannot survive outside the womb without major techno-med stuff needs to be reexamined. Not to mention the possibility of a just war and all that.

I think Saint Paul cared several whits if he caused an agitation. It's not always bad to cause one, and not always good, and maybe not always good not to care one way or another. Outcomes matter a little, and the purpose of fighting is to win, or else it's perverse, I think. I disagree with LB about the outcome of this action, but I don't think he's off the wall with his concerns. The question of injury to justice in a deliberative assembly is tricky, I think. Just as a solider in the middle of combat probably ought to think as much has he can ab out the outcomes of his acts of bravery, so a legislator needs to consider if stretching the parliamentary rules here might lead to his being unable to act somewhere else.

I've been doing this a while. I make mistakes, sometimes in thought, often in expression. And often I don't have time to choose my words carefully. Now is one such time. I have to feed some animals then clean myself up to go to a friend's wake. So I may seem brusque or make an error -- like writing "just as" when I mean "at least as", and I hope we won't have to go into whether I have certain feelings, like being upset, and why I have them (too much coffee? not enough Glenlivet?) but can look at the case before us, which is, as far as I can tell: Whether or not Mr. Harvey done good.

I'm inclined to think he did. I just don't think it's a slam dunk.

221 posted on 06/29/2006 2:50:16 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (If the gates of Hell prevail against it, it probably never was a church anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
Are you now going so far as to say that I have been dishonest up to this point?

Man! With your breath who can get close enough to find out?

222 posted on 06/29/2006 2:51:38 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (If the gates of Hell prevail against it, it probably never was a church anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; leda

Did the measure then pass, or not?


223 posted on 06/29/2006 2:52:31 PM PDT by patton (...in spit of it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton

Good question. Anyone know?

jw


224 posted on 06/29/2006 3:00:09 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

Ok, you are not worth my time to reply to any more.

You clearly can't follow words that are written.

I said a BABY is one that can survive outside the womb. I also said a BABY's life begins at conception.

That is a no-brainer.

I said a FETUS, by MY definition, is an embryo that CANNOT survive outside the womb.

You are clearly more interested in antagonizing than in discussing, and I don't need to play that game with you. But if you decide you want to engage in an actual discussion, then have at it.


225 posted on 06/29/2006 3:02:02 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Yes, precisely that. It's almost a "stopped beating your wife" question, and even worse, in a way, because it diverts the conversation away from the matter at hand to the psychology of LB, which doesn't strike me as especially relevant. It seems calculated to put him on the defensive, which may help you win a logomachy, but won't necessarily advance reason or truth.

It wasn't calculated to put him on the defensive, it was a valid question and an honest one.

Actually what I said was that homicide is just as evil as lying (you put it the other way around -- is "just as evil" commutative?), and I probably should have said "at least as evil". You failed to change my mind, but you did change my language, so that ain't bad.

Don't exactly know what you're getting at here, I quoted you verbatim from post #153. I copied and pasted your own words into the discussion between you and I.

If I didn't change your mind, are you saying that you are in disagreement with the Church? Please explain your position further.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

LOL!

I've been doing this a while. I make mistakes, sometimes in thought, often in expression. And often I don't have time to choose my words carefully. Now is one such time. I have to feed some animals then clean myself up to go to a friend's wake. So I may seem brusque or make an error -- like writing "just as" when I mean "at least as", and I hope we won't have to go into whether I have certain feelings, like being upset, and why I have them (too much coffee? not enough Glenlivet?) but can look at the case before us, which is, as far as I can tell: Whether or not Mr. Harvey done good.

Wow, I'm sorry about your friend. May God grant them eternal rest and may He give you comfort.

226 posted on 06/29/2006 3:06:42 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
"JWinNC: Post originally to beezdotcom. If you don't like my analogy in post #215 then use the hypothetical in this post."

What hypothetical? The "lesbian thing" in the first paragraph?

And I must note that this is inaccurate:

"He was given the floor on the basis and premise that he would introduce a CP advocate about which there is no controversy or disagreement."

This has alredy been coverd in our discussion. He used the time that was normal and expected to introduce visitors nad make announcements. He could have introduced you or I or anyone else at that time. He was NOT given the floor on the basis and premise you claim.

jw

227 posted on 06/29/2006 3:07:35 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
I think we're on relatively the same page here. As I said, I don't think anyone had a problem with HER, I think the problem was with HARVEY, and the way he got her on the platform.

Yes, false pretext was a misnomer on my part, because as you said, he presented the truth about part of her story. Just like Harvey himself said, he's not Paul Harvey, but there was "the rest of the story."

That's my only beef with the whole thing - and the whole system and the way it has become so full of animosity that people can't simply state the truth and be given equal floor time. Harvey should have been able to say "This woman has CP, she has overcome many obstacles in her lifetime, and she is an abortion survivor, and since that is apropos to our topic today, I'd like to have her open the session by singing the National Anthem." And that should have been allowed and welcomed and applauded in exactly the same way that it was. Harvey SHOULD have been able to tell the whole story up front, but sadly, in today's animous world, he knew he probably would be shut down if he did that.

The same way that you and I are able to have a civil discussion, why can't the two parties in our Govt do the same? Why can't two sides to a different issue do the same thing?

In other words, why can't people just behave like grown-ups? :-)
228 posted on 06/29/2006 3:10:31 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: JWinNC
Gosh JW, this is really too long to reply to, but I think I can break it down.

1. I was not defining "life" in my definition. You are adding that word to the discussion. I was simply stating what my personal definition is between a "non-viable fetus" and a "baby." BOTH are LIFE.

2. I didn't say "with care" anywhere in my definition. You added those words to the discussion. As you said, it's a given that no baby can survive outside the womb, at any age, without care (for almost any species). My definition is whether it could survive, at all, under any circumstances, whether it be the best of circumstances, with the best of care, with the best medical advancements available of any kind, or the worst of care. Simply, whether it could survive, AT ALL. I didn't qualify it with any type, quality, or amount of subsequent CARE. You added that part.

2a. Because yes, I absolutely agree with you that "with care" changes the entire definition, and that's why "with care" is not in my definition. I know alot of 15-yr olds who couldn't survive without care. And we all know alot of 90-yr olds who can't survive without care. Etc.

3. To answer your question about whether a murder has been committed. As you know, "murder" is a legal term that implies/includes intention and forethought, etc. So your question is not specific enough to answer under the legal definition of murder. If you are asking if a human being has been killed in the process of denying readily available care to a baby, then my answer is yes, a human being (aka baby) has been killed. But many people will have different definitions of "readily available care."

These things are why it is so difficult to have a discussion on abortion, because every time you turn around, someone opens up a completely different can of worms, or another word or set of words needs to be defined by all parties involved, etc. It's not a simple topic, like whether the earth is round or not. :-)
229 posted on 06/29/2006 3:54:43 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

I want to publicly apologize to Delphinium for my previous post.

Delphinium, please forgive me. I didn't mean to make a personal statement about you like that. I meant to say that your post was not worth replying to, not that you personally are not worth replying to.

Please forgive me for my rudeness.


230 posted on 06/29/2006 3:58:12 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: JWinNC
This has already been covered in our discussion. He used the time that was normal and expected to introduce visitors and make announcements. He could have introduced you or I or anyone else at that time. He was NOT given the floor on the basis and premise you claim.

It's been covered but you are wrong. I will highlight it for you. He said:

The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.

[change of topic - ding, ding, ding]

Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…


This is exactly the point at which he deviated from introducing her to turning the topic of discussion to an intended rant against PP. Why can't you see that? He was gaveled to silence and rightly so.

"Representative Harvey, I will allow you to continue your introduction, but not for the purposes of debating a measure now pending before the House."

Exactly right. The time for debating pending legislation is when that legislation is under consideration. The proper thing for him to do was to wait for that legislation to come up and be recognized to speak on it. At that time he was perfectly entitled to recognize her and use her to put a face on the issue. It's done all the time. If he is such a minor member of that legislative body that he can't get recognized to speak then that doesn't give him special privileges to speak out of turn.

I don't care how inspired by God you are, if you are going to participate in the civil polity then you don't get to make up the rules for yourself. If you violate the rules, yes you can get away with it once, but: a) you shouldn't be surprised if you are never recognized to speak again, and b) you shouldn't complain if everyone else decides the rules don't apply to them either.

And maybe it gave him, and those here, some fleeting satisfaction at having made mad those with whom we all disagree (how Christian is that?). Acting like the rules don't apply to you actually hurts rather than helps the cause. If you demonstrate that you don't believe in the rules then who's going to trust you to obey the law going forward? As I said at the start, "This is exactly the kind of stunt that gives Christians a bad name." It becomes pretty hard to convice non-believers of the righteousness of the Christian faith when they see stuff like this.

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

As a technical aside, in utero oxygen is supplied by the umbilical cord. I don't see how the saline solution interfered with that. Unless he means there was lung damage that resulted in hypoxia after birth? In any event, as I said early on, it's not medically established that a lack of oxygen is connected with CP yet he states this as an established fact. I have a problem with that as well.

For those of you that don't know John Edwards made his first millions by suing an obstetrician with the allegation that a failure to perform a C-section resulted in oxygen starvation and CP. There were several net results
1) an obstetrician's practice was ruined
2) other obstetrician/gynecologists quit the obstetrician part of their practice resulting in less available health care.
3) C-sections skyrocketed in NC which increased cost was passed on to everyone
4) the incidence of CP remained unchanged

Therefore I'm disappointed to see anyone repeating this apparent canard. I wonder if they know they are keeping company with John Edwards?
231 posted on 06/29/2006 4:16:57 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; GMMAC; sionnsar; styky

Bump and ping!


232 posted on 06/29/2006 4:28:25 PM PDT by fanfan (I wouldn't be so angry with them if they didn't want to kill me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nihil Obstat
40,000,000

God forgive us.

233 posted on 06/29/2006 4:30:06 PM PDT by fanfan (I wouldn't be so angry with them if they didn't want to kill me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JWinNC; leda; Salvation
It appears the resolution passed 24-11.

I could weep...

234 posted on 06/29/2006 5:11:48 PM PDT by patton (...in spit of it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: patton; Salvation; leda; All
From what I can find, the Denver Post is reporting that the Senator was rebuked for his behavior...

They also describe the girl as a "pro-life advocate," not a CP advocate.

And nowhere do they report that the resolution passed, 24-11.

235 posted on 06/29/2006 5:37:52 PM PDT by patton (...in spit of it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
Therefore I'm disappointed to see anyone repeating this apparent canard. I wonder if they know they are keeping company with John Edwards?

Hate to say this, but Edwards did his homework!

From The Wisconsin Council on Developmental Disabilities about Cerebral Palsy:

CP often originates when oxygen is cut off to the motor cells in an infant's brain. The oxygen deprivation may occur just prior to birth, during a difficult birth, because of prematurity, infection or by a brain injury in the first two years of life. Once the damage is done it can not be changed, but early therapy and/or surgery may increase abilities.

Living and Aging with Cerebral Palsy

The Merck Manual is used in medical training. Their definition says:

Many different types of injury to the brain can cause cerebral palsy, and most often a specific cause cannot be identified. Birth injuries and poor oxygen supply to the brain before, during, and immediately after birth cause 10 to 15% of cases.

Merck Manual

From the Cleveland Clinic/causes of Cerebral Palsy:

Lack of oxygen to the baby's during development or delivery

Cleveland Clinic

236 posted on 06/29/2006 5:59:31 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict
If you believe that the fetus and the baby are both “life” and “human beings” then does that not immediately go against your original post #48? You are trying to make a personal definition and distinction between a “fetus” and a “baby” but your on words blur the lines between the two.

Why would it be okay (or at least more conscionable) to abort a 6.5 month “live” fetus than it would a 7.5 month “live” baby? You're walking an arbitrary, artificial and unnecessary line between fetus and baby.. you say they are BOTH LIFE. I agree.

I think you may be getting really close to seeing the point, I wish I had more time.

Okay, change every where I said "life" and insert baby. The points would still be same. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

#2. You have still avoided the issue. How do you take care out your definition? We've clearly established that care is required to meet your standard of definition for a "baby." That is... that a fetus has to have the potential to live ("could live") outside the womb. If none (zip, zero, nada) can live outside the womb without care then you must by logic deal with it or remove it.

Simply saying “... whether it could survive, AT ALL” does not answer the question because none, not one, can survive with out care. What does “AT ALL” mean? Are you implying a time factor, a quality factor or something else? Does it's heart have to beat outside the womb? Once or twice? Does it have to take a breath? How many?

#3. Now we're getting really warm. Forget about the legal term “murder.” You agree that “ a human being has been killed in the process of denying readily available care to a baby....” Okay! ... getting really close to heart of the matter. What is the definition of readily available care that will give the “entity” a chance to survive “AT ALL?”

If that is not clear, let me phrase it another way. You belief the difference between a fetus and a baby occurs somewhere between 2 and 5 months gestation. What care does, say, a 4.9-month-gestation fetus need to have a chance “AT ALL” to survive?

If what a 4.9-month-gestation fetus needs to have a chance “AT ALL” to survive is not provided, does that end the life of a human being? I realize you have already answered that, but I don't think you see the full implication of that statement. I am hoping by this point you will see that there is one particular type of care that is almost 100% of the time readily available that will more often than not give the 4.9-month-gestation fetus a chance for life beyond the womb. It also applies from conception to birth.

Peace, jw

237 posted on 06/29/2006 6:02:38 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

Yes, we're aware of your opinion. You still didn't answer me: are you obligated to volunteer the additional information about yourself?


238 posted on 06/29/2006 6:07:18 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
"It's been covered but you are wrong. I will highlight it for you. He said:" "The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy."

I must strongly disagree. No where does it say he was given the floor for on the basis you claimed... no where. You now change the subject from the "basis for the floor" to the content of what he said.

Further you go on to read the fellows mind...

"...turning the topic of discussion to an intended rant against PP."

Sorry, I think we've passed reasonable discussion and I'm through. God bless and best wishes.

Peace,
jw

239 posted on 06/29/2006 6:13:46 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
What I said:
I think homicide is just as evil as lying,
I think what I meant was more like "no less an evil than"....

You quoted me, but then you said:
...but the Church doesn't agree with you about lying being just as evil as homicide ...
which led to my asking if "just as" is commutative.

But my argument works not much worse even if lying were as bad as homicide. That is, if sometimes you gotta kill a human, how can it be a priori true that it is never okay to lie?

You write:
It wasn't calculated to put him on the defensive, it was a valid question and an honest one.

I respond: Asserting the contrary is not an argument. It's just stating what the argument is about. It may not have been calculated to put him on the defensive. I have no more a window into your soul than you have into his, and e-communications on fora are not a good environment for picking up on the vibes of someone's feelings.

But his upsetittude or non-upsetitude is not to the purpose. My mood is one thing, my arguments another. They neither stand nor fall on my emotional state at the time I present them.

And whatever your intention, if he responds to the question, "What are you so upset about?" what will we learn about his thinking on the morality of lying? I'm upset, somewhat, because a friend died earlier than I would have liked and there's this big hole here where she used to be AND I think her husband is one of the world's truly good guys and I hate to see him suffer,

But I'm just as much of a pedantic, nit-picking, argumentative logic chopper when I feel good. (And thanks for your prayers for the deceased, Ann, and her excellent husband, Richard.)

I think Locomotive Breath has been bear-baited by many of us pro-lifers. I regret it because clearly he has tried to think well about both abortion and telling the truth. I think he has reached the wrong conclusions, but I have reached plenty of wrong conclusions in my life, I mean PLENTY!, so I don't hold that against him. He even has the nerve (da NOIVE!) to think that I have reached the wrong conclusion -- which just shows how out of touch with reality he is.

I want to hear him make his argument against being subtle as a serpent in the Colorado legislature.

Of course, my personal opinion is that if one DIDN't lie to a politician he'd feel all lonely and disappointed. But that's just me.

240 posted on 06/29/2006 7:49:32 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (If the gates of Hell prevail against it, it probably never was a church anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
I'm only obligated to volunteer my opinion. If you want additional information about me then you provide an example and go first. Just remember, as it says on the preview page, "Loose lips sink ships".
241 posted on 06/30/2006 1:53:18 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
If you go to the NIH links I provided earlier then you'll see that this is far from settled. We can get into a link war. You provide links that say yes and I provide links that say not so fast.

And I'm still having trouble understanding a mechanism how saline in utero causes oxygen deprivation when the oxygen supply comes through the umbilicus.
242 posted on 06/30/2006 1:57:50 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: JWinNC
He didn't care about her CP per se. His sole reason, from the beginning, for having her come to perform and then introduce her was so he could get the floor and change the topic from CP and start a rant about PP during the time in which he was meant to be simply introducing her. The CP was only a pretext, a foot in the door, to hide his true agenda. That's the only reason he was allowed to speak about her. If he had said his intentions were to introduce her so he could put a face on an abortion survivor and condemn PP he would not have been allowed to speak. So he hid his intentions because he knew his behavior would be unacceptable.

As a counter example, if she were a healthy abortion survivor without having CP and without being a CP advocate he could have would have still done the same under some other false pretext. "Here's my sister-in-law and she's a great singer. Can she perform for us today and may I have the floor to introduce her?" He was being dishonest and he knew it right from the start. I pray for those who can't tell the difference.
243 posted on 06/30/2006 2:22:14 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

Speaking of obligations - I need to apologize to you for continuing this argument in public. If you're Christian, you'll understand why...and even if you're not, suffice it to say, this is no way for me to build bridges. Please accept my apology, especially for my snarky attitude.


244 posted on 06/30/2006 6:32:53 AM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

Thank you but no apology is necessary - this is just an irrelevant debating forum to blow off a few minutes trying out thoughts on things of interest to whoever's here. If I couldn't stand a little give and take then I wouldn't post here. (I've seen worse exchanges in certain church committee meetings - finance is the worst.) If I've said anything that's really truly offensive to you then likewise please accept my apologies.


245 posted on 06/30/2006 8:01:15 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Salvation; Agnes Heep; agrace; Aliska; amdgmary; AnAmericanMother; A-plus; atruelady; ...
The baby-killing gang can't stand to see the proof that their "it's not really a human being" line is a dirty lie

A lie they cannot possibly believe themselves, unless the Lord has sent them the strong delusion of their desires.

246 posted on 06/30/2006 8:21:04 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
If you go to the NIH links I provided earlier then you'll see that this is far from settled. We can get into a link war. You provide links that say yes and I provide links that say not so fast.

I'm sorry, you were saying that there is no proof that oxygen deprivation caused Cerebral Palsy. Then you added the insult to readers here that believed it that we're in the same category as John Edwards.

It appears you found a site that bolstered your opinion only, when there are sites that provide information to the opposite. This has nothing to do with a links war, this has to do with accuracy. I hardly think that the Cleveland Clinic doesn't know what they are talking about when it comes to Cerebral Palsy and they say one of the causes is oxygen deprivation.

And I'm still having trouble understanding a mechanism how saline in utero causes oxygen deprivation when the oxygen supply comes through the umbilicus.

Here's why. Because they inject toxic levels to induce abortion:

"Surgical abortion involves the use of a mechanical device (suction or vacuum aspirator), surgical instruments (forceps, sharp curette and cervical dilator) and/or long needles (for injecting a deadly concentration of saline).

Surgical Abortion

247 posted on 06/30/2006 9:00:04 AM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

While you're at that Surgical Abortion site please read this:

Saline Injection or Salt Poisoning Technique

Saline (or other toxic level chemical) injection is performed when a pregnancy is 16 weeks and beyond (when enough amniotic fluid is present to surround the baby.)

Procedure Description:

Note: This procedure may require hospitalization.

1.
A long needle is inserted through the mother's abdomen (belly) into the amniotic sac.
2.
Amniotic fluid is removed from the sac and is replaced by a very strong salt solution meant to kill the baby. By the 4th month of pregnancy, the baby has been drinking and breathing in amniotic fluid to help the organs develop properly. However, when the salt solution is substituted for the normal amniotic fluid, it causes severe burning of the baby's skin, eyes, mouth and lungs.
3.
Labor may begin within 24 hours of the saline injection resulting in the delivery of a badly burned, shriveled, dead baby.

Complications / Side Effects:

Delivery of a Badly Burned Infant
The infant may survive this procedure and be delivered alive. But, may not live for a very long time thereafter.

Future Infertility Problems
The woman may have future infertility problems if the uterus has been badly scarred during this procedure.


248 posted on 06/30/2006 9:04:02 AM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Wow. Just wow. This is a riveting story.


249 posted on 06/30/2006 9:05:27 AM PDT by hispanarepublicana (Don't fall for the soft bigotry of assuming all Hispanics are pro-amnesty. www.dontspeakforme.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

Thank you for that extra information. Given my background of adoption I already knew a little about it. It's a horrific technique. I have no reservations at all understanding how someone subjected to this technique, if they survive, can be horribly injured. Please understand that I'm not really trying to be argumentative. However, your post still does not provide the mechanism of hypoxia as the postulated cause for her CP.

In fact there's quite a bit we don't know (and it's probably just as well). Did they do the procedure "improperly" which allowed her to live? Did the procedure induce labor - was she born shortly afterward and survive or did she go full term? Maybe the hypoxia occured after the live birth because her lungs were injured? Aside any political issues, the circumstances of her birth and survival are interesting in their own right.


250 posted on 06/30/2006 9:19:31 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-279 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson