To: monomaniac
They eat dogs and cockroaches. I know. I've been there and seen it.
Their opinion matters not.
ImaGraftedBranch.
2 posted on
07/13/2007 10:02:26 PM PDT by
Ultra Sonic 007
(Look at all the candidates. Choose who you think is best. Choose wisely in 2008.)
To: monomaniac
To: monomaniac
Yhose gigantic Korean Christian churches better get on the offensive and back their Catholic brothers up on protecting unborn children.
If not a human person, what is the unborn child? Tissue?
5 posted on
07/13/2007 10:07:17 PM PDT by
exit82
(I have a gut feeling: Michael Chertoff is a jerk.)
To: Coleus; wagglebee
7 posted on
07/13/2007 10:12:27 PM PDT by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: monomaniac
So a kid born with a c-section is not human?
9 posted on
07/13/2007 10:30:15 PM PDT by
babygene
(Never look into the laser with your last good eye...)
To: monomaniac
10 posted on
07/13/2007 10:34:02 PM PDT by
Cedar
To: monomaniac
12 posted on
07/13/2007 10:51:45 PM PDT by
TheMole
To: monomaniac
They finally delivered the baby through Caesarean section, but the child had already died from brain damage. By saying that something "had died," aren't you admitting that it was previously alive?
The baby died on its own in the mother's womb; the midwife did not kill it.
However, she gave advice which may have resulted in the baby's death. If the mother had consulted a physician instead of the midwife (practicing medicine without a license?), the mother might have been able to save the baby by having it earlier through Caeserian section.
15 posted on
07/13/2007 11:48:31 PM PDT by
wai-ming
To: monomaniac
Amazing. It's illegal to abort something in South Korea that's declared not a human being. Bizarro world.
16 posted on
07/14/2007 12:01:42 AM PDT by
fieldmarshaldj
(~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
To: monomaniac
This case pushes a lot of hot-buttons, but there is no claim that the midwife caused intentional harm to anyone. The question is whether she, as a medical professional, negligently disregarded commonly accepted standards of care. The article does not speak to that.
This case did not make new law; it just didn’t change the standing law. It couldn’t. It’s the wrong case for it.
To: monomaniac
in the course of discussion on this thread last night,I received several freeper emails and folks........it was weird beyong measure..........now notice the subject is abortion............so I got this e mail........
“” he designed man to his own specification-do you really think he has a right to get pissed off when we act within the parameters he gave us? “
it got seriously more bizzare in the freep mail but this is their mindset...........
19 posted on
07/14/2007 10:52:50 AM PDT by
advertising guy
(If computer skills named us, I'd be back-space delete.)
To: monomaniac
Christians have a duty to actively support ProLife legislation. Christians have a duty to fight any legislation designed to destroy the moral fiber of society and innocent human life. We are all citizens of the world and in our countries we have a duty to express our opinions, beliefs and religious origins of those guiding principles to governmental representatives in opposition to this and many other evil horrors. We must remain influential in determining the kind of people who will be placed in our public offices and we should encourage committed Christians to seek positions of influence in the private and public realms.
21 posted on
07/16/2007 12:04:02 PM PDT by
jacknhoo
(Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson