Skip to comments.Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]
Posted on 06/28/2006 11:25:07 AM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
**I remind people of the post-Roe generation that abortion has been the Black Death of their generation.**
Excellent point. Only difference is that it will have a great impact on those who provided or assisted with abortions at the Last Judgment!
That brings tears to my eyes and a lump to my throat!
awesome story, thanks for posting, will bookmark
Oops, I agree!
Hate those typos.
**Christians at times have had to be bold to get a chance to even be heard. **
Absolutely! And we may soon see Christians persecuted like they currently are in China.
My point still stands that if Harvey had told the legislature that Gianna would be speaking about abortion (being an abortion survivor and all), the legislature would have flat-out denied him the opportunity.
And you have to admit, his anti-abortion viewpoint wouldn't have been enforced as well without the aid of Gianna, a survivor of abortion.
Wow, awesome story!
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.
Granted, but you left out that "Ironically, Alice Madden, the majority leader and sponsor of the Planned Parenthood resolution, walked over to Gianna and congratulated her."
Looks like the majority leader got over her mad long enough to congratulate this young woman.
And.. it looks like the only ones that got mad were the Democrats. See anywhere where he says the Republicans were fuming mad?
Personally, I could care less if the Democrats got angry. They are a party that supports killing the innocent, taxing you death (I live in a state that is run by Dems and my taxes are eating me alive)and homosexual supporters. It's about time somebody held up a mirror to them to show them what they support is an aberrant crime. They are the real criminals, IMO. They aid and abet the killing of millions of innocent life every year. I bet they did get mad. The truth hurts.
Although we aren't to the level that the Chinese Christians face, we are certainly under the gun in this country. God has been taken out of our public schools, the Ten Commandments are being torn down and taken away from public squares. Every Christmas, Christian symbolism is being attacked and taken away from the public arena. Many television programs mock Jesus Christ and Christians. If you speak your personal convictions you may face losing your job like the Catholic the other day that spoke out against homosexuality in Maryland.
It's getting kind of scary here in America lately.
You evidently admire reason and deliberation, despite your breath. So please do it slowly and carefully for me. What was the trick, what was dirty about it?
And as you answer, I guess I'd like to see the consideration that the liberals, when they gain a significant strength in a deliberative assembly, tend to work the parliamentary rules as strongly as they can, with no regard to equity, to make their point, and to stifle the opposition. And when the rules don't work for them, when wondering what the meaning is "is" is begins to fail, they'll cheat in a heartbeat. And lives are at stake here.
In the face of such tactics, should a Christian say that his principles prevent him from protecting the innocent and helpless and consequently he will let the liberals dominate the conversation? Did Jesus, Amos, or Jeremiah take that approach? Did St. Peter when he preached in opposition to the plain decree of the Sanhedrin? Did Luther, or Wycliffe?
Clearly I don't think so, and I don't think getting rolled by liberals is always a moral duty.
For those who allow themselves to be instruments in God's hands: thank you for your courage and strength which comes from a desire to listen and obey Him, our Creator.
Anyway, the story goes that he was hearing a young woman's confession, and after she finished, he told her gently that she had not confessed *everything*. She hesitated, but then admitted that she had had an abortion.
After he said the words of absolution, she asked him if he knew what would have become of her unborn baby. "My child," he said, "Your son would have become the pope."
Very uplifting story about an admirable young lady and a courageous politician.
This story is so awesome. This guy had alot of courage. Good for him and Gianna.
He asked to speak to address a certain topic knowing in his heart that he intended to do something else.
Keep on pushing, Ted! Bravo! Bravissimo!
You have the sequence of events out of order. The congrats were for overcoming the CP before Harvey's true agenda became known.
"At what age can a human live outside the womb without help from an older human?"
These days, it seems to be around 30 or later. And of course, nobody could survive without the help of others all through life.
Oops! You are correct. I had read the article earlier in the day and should have reread the whole thing again. I remembered from reading it earlier that she had congratulated the young lady and keyed in on the wrong sequence of events in my comments. I apologize.
Still, the only ones that were upset were the Democrats. I didn't see that the Republicans raised a stink about it.
May I ask why you are so upset over this? 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?
If Harvey's "one moment of agitation" causes a person to not get an abortion or changes the mind of one person who is pro-abortion, then yes, I would say it was worth it.
If I or anyone else tries to redefine it at this late date is just as valid (and silly) as saying bluegill are not fish because they swim in fresh water and I want fish to only refer to salt water vertebrates. My attempt to narrowly redefine the word fish in the face of centuries of use would be ludicrous.
That's not what I was defining. I didn't say "live without help from an older human." I said "live." Period.
So I'm not going to argue a point I wasn't making.
Of course there are whacko baby killers. I never said there weren't.
I'm not going to debate you about my own personal definition. My, Own, Personal... definition.
I'm not going to answer your first question because it's not relevant to what I wrote.
And to your statement: It doesn't make it NOT so either.
You said it yourself, it's a human life that is formING, not formED.
And I didn't say it wasn't HUMAN. I said it couldn't survive outside the body.
(I really really really wish that both extremes on this issue, both the far RIGHT pro-Life and the far LEFT pro-Choice would be able to read and comprehend what people actually type/say, without extrapolating things that are not typed/said/intended. At least the Gentleman in post #54 was able to ask questions and do so in a way that actually allows me to answer and continue the dialogue... because only through dialogue can we understand each other.)
Again, I wish people could read what I wrote, not what you wish I had written. I did not write anything about the definition of Humanity or Human. So I won't debate anything about your entire first paragraph, because you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
And since the rest of your post was based on your first paragraph, I have no response to you. If you care to comment on what I actually DID say, then I will respond to that.
As I thought I made perfectly clear, by my use of quotations around the words, I was using a specific definition for that word, MY PERSONAL definition.
It's not relevant what the root of the word is. I could have just as easily used "$t#K*T" in my sentence, because I provided the definition for the word I had framed in quotation marks.
And I was not trying to redefine the word. Did I say that I was? Clearly not. So again, I wish people on this topic could read, hear, understand, and reply to, what is ACTUALLY SAID, not what they wish the person had said or hoped they might have intended to say, just to fan the flames of this debate even further. I do not understand why people can't simply have dialogue on this topic.
Well... that gets into a completely different, and HUGE, topic... of whether or not we should be intervening in such drastic ways for (babies) that weren't meant to survive in the first place.
I mean, the primary reason cited by pro-Life people is religious/God. So one could ask, "If God didn't want that baby to survive, who are we to go to such drastic means to keep it alive."
Then you can also argue that God gave us the technology to be able to do so...
And of course that is a HUGE HUGE topic, arguing whether ANY medical intervention, of any kind, should ever be done, on any human, at any time. And whether or not modern medical miracles and the amazing breakthroughs in medical technology are all part of God's plan, and He wouldn't have given us that technology if He didn't want us to use to save every single life, etc.
So as I said, it's a huge can of worms to start talking about whether or not we should even be going to the extreme measures necessary to keep a 20-week baby alive outside the womb.
But of course all of that is completely off topic for this thread, and for my original post. :-)
I don't think my definition would change. The definition would be the same, but the age at which a baby can survive outside the womb is, and probably will continue to change. The point is not whether that "fetus" could survive if it were born in the year 2435, but whether or not it could live outside the womb TODAY. So the definition will stay the same forever, but the science/skills will change.
But at that point, my definition of "human" might come into play!
I'm thinking of Sci-Fi-Future movies, where all the "humans" are born from test tubes, and there are no more interpersonal relationships, and everything is done by genetic engineering: We need more factory workers, so we "breed" "beings" who can stand the monotony of working on an assembly line all day, etc.
At this point in time, our super-human efforts to save a premature baby (20-weeks gestation), result in a relatively normal human being. But I can't forsee the future, and I don't know (a) how long it will take to develop the skill/technology to keep an 8-week-gestation "baby" alive, and (b) whether the resultant "product" of that effort will be "fairly normal" or not.
And a person can't debate with someone who won't debate on issues.
Oh I don't disagree with that. But as I said, it's a big can of worms. (Who pays for all the effort to keep that one baby alive, how many others die because resources are spent keeping that one alive that could have been spread out to others, etc., etc.) I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just saying it's a big topic.
And I don't think the people were mad at either of the two things you mentioned. I think they were mad at the false pretext under which she was introduced - Cerebral Palsy - when the true motive was the Planned Parenthood angle. If I were in that audience, I could feel both joy at having heard her sing, and joy at hearing her story of accomplishments and survival, AND anger at the person for "duping" the audience with the false introduction. I just don't see why there had to be any "duping" at all. Why the false pretext? Why not just bring the woman in and say, by the way, here's the other side of the Planned Parenthood story. So I think that's where the anger was, and that's why I agreed with the first person who posted that comment. (False pretext isn't exactly "Christian-like.")
Ted Harvey needs support. He is running again. How many officials have a backbone to stand up for what is right; in spite of what it can do to their political career.
Let's support him!
A baby begins its life at conception.
What is there to debate?
Or are you one of those who likes to debate something that isn't even contested? Based on the oozing animosity in your post, I suspect you are.
Wow, I'm late to the party. That's AWESOME! Great post- thank you!