Posted on 05/28/2002 7:10:25 AM PDT by TroutStalker
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
DENVER -- As soon as he saw the blue minivan turning into the parking lot of Planned Parenthood's small abortion clinic here, Kenneth Scott grabbed his digital camera, clambered up his rickety metal ladder and started snapping pictures.
"You'll have nightmares about this day the rest of your life," he bellowed, photographing the blond woman gingerly leaving the minivan. Then he turned his camera to her escort. "Your sin won't be hidden or forgotten," he screamed.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Second, I'm not justifying abortion because it's less deadly than, say, a heart-bypass surgery. My point was that the numbers relating to risk of injury/death (and the success/failure rate of individual doctors) is available to any patient at any time pre or post-op.
In essence, I was trying to refute the "conspiracy of silence" myth that has been circulating in pro-life circles since time immemorial.
Actually, you don't know anything about any of this. Privacy laws protect the clinics because abortion is so sensitive, don't you know. You can not have any idea how many teens are taken to clinics by their school counsellors. On the other hand, we can't know either. It is speculation on both parts. Does that bother you at all?
Second, I'm not justifying abortion because it's less deadly than, say, a heart-bypass surgery. My point was that the numbers relating to risk of injury/death (and the success/failure rate of individual doctors) is available to any patient at any time pre or post-op.
Do you know this for a fact? Do you know that abortion minded women are told everything they need to know about the procedures? Carol Everett (who used to run 3 clinics before she became a Christian) disagrees with you.
In essence, I was trying to refute the "conspiracy of silence" myth that has been circulating in pro-life circles since time immemorial.
I don't think you have succeeded yet.
Shalom.
How about if we get in there and save your vast right wing ass from being sliced up before we worry about your conversion?:^)
Cordially,
Doctors are required by law to provide their patients with information regarding risks of injury/death involved in any medical procedure, they are not required to (but generally do) appraise their patients of likely side-effects that are not life-threatening. Individual hospitals keep records on the success/failure rate of each doctor for internal/legal reasons. These records are available upon request.
Carol Everett (who used to run 3 clinics before she became a Christian) disagrees with you.
Carol Everett has an agenda that places her in direct opposition to the abortion clinics that she used to run. You'll pardon me if I don't take her at her word.
Works well for drug education </ sarcasm>
What is the best movie of all time? What is your favorite ice cream? What is the meaning of life? What is love?
Those are reasonable subjects about which people may disagree. Why, the answers are subjective. It simply is not acceptable to me when people posit this notion about reasonable people disagreeing on abortion.
I think it is more accurate to say that those who believe these pre-born children not to be human are unable to reason. I don't agree with the tactics of many "pro-lifers." And, I question the legality of using someone's representation without their permission. (Though I would suggest that appearance on a public street would weaken that argument, as would use of such a picture for political speech, rather than commercial profit.) Those issues are interesting to me.
I will say that I am not surprised that some people will use any tactic. In the minds of the anti-abortionists, abortions kill 1.4 million defenseless children each year in this country. Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin would be proud. One cannot believe that children are being killed, and then simply accept that reasonable people should disagree.
The Courts have improperly fashioned a non-existent right to an abortion. They have attacked the the right of protesters to protest at homes and at clinics, and the left has slowly choked off the debate on this issue. That some take to methods I would not use, does not surprise me.
But, if it isn't a baby, and it isn't a bad thing to do, why be ashamed?
Hopefully, in the future, the folly of abortion on demand and the killing of pre-born children will be ridiculed as humanities great sin of our time. One day, we will look back at abortion and loathe it and our so-called advanced society for accepting it. And those who defend the practice so passionately, and at times even eloquently, will be judged the same as those who found arguments to support slavery.
On this, you are wrong. Reasonable people cannot support abortion.
Women who had an abortion as well as men who got them pregnant have an agenda too, its called denial. Denial that they caused the death of an innocent child.
So, if we negate all who may have an agenda from the debate who is left ? God and satan ?
Actually there are drugs that counteract the affects of alcohol or drugs. But back to point, education doesn't do squat to change behavior.
Well said but the actions of these photographers isn't disuading them and posting them after the fact is an added cruelty.
We know that most of them will suffer psychologically from their actions and the last thing they need is further condemnation from christians. Jane Doe was converted by christians who showed her love and compassion just like Jesus did time and again to one sinner after another.
When I went into the hospital to have a biopsy performed, I was presented with a little bit of paperwork to read and to sign indicating that I had been presented with such information.
I can sign because I am an adult. A minor cannot legally be bound by such paperwork because they are too young to consent to a legally binding agreement.
And yet you insist that abortion is different. If it weren't a liberal issue, it wouldn't be.
Wrong. Whether or not jelly beans taste good is a reasonable thing to disagree about. The definition of life is fixed by objective scientific criteria; it is no more reasonable to "disagree" about that than, say, the notion that the earth is flat.
I mean, they should know that there's nothing to be embarassed about. The FemiNazis have assured us that no babies are actually killed during abortions, and they would NEVER lie to us, right?
Patsy Ireland says this is no different than having a wart removed or a mole burned off. So what's the big deal?
/sarcasm off......
All of this information is required for every medical facility but an abortion clinic and for every procedure but abortion. I could be wrong. I'll tell you what. Go request the information and prove it to me.
Carol Everett has an agenda that places her in direct opposition to the abortion clinics that she used to run. You'll pardon me if I don't take her at her word.
Why should you. Just because she was once a successfull abortionist who stoped when she was revolted by what she was doing, why should you pay any attention to her? Just because she has reason to know what she is talking about? Just because her data might conflict with what you want to believe? Carol isn't making more money now than when she was running the clinic, she's making less. Unless you have some reson to suggest that she's making up what she says, some reason other than the suggestion that her experience has driven her to take up a cause, you might want to read it.
Shalom.
(Hebrew Molech, king).
A divinity worshipped by the idolatrous Israelites. The Hebrew pointing Molech does not represent the original pronunciation of the name, any more than the Greek vocalization Moloch found in the LXX and in the Acts (vii, 43). The primitive title of this god was very probably Melech, "king", the consonants of which came to be combined through derision with the vowels of the word Bosheth, "shame". As the word Moloch (A.V. Molech) means king, it is difficult in several places of the Old Testament to determine whether it should be considered as the proper name of a deity or as a simple appellative. The passages of the original text in which the name stands probably for that of a god are Lev., xviii, 21; xx, 2-5; III (A. V. I) Kings, xi, 7; IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 10; Is., xxx, 33; lvii, 9; Jer., xxxii, 35. The chief feature of Moloch's worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was "to pass through the fire", a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death. The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably "place of abomination"), in the valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected "a temple" for Moloch "on the hill over against Jerusalem", and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel. The custom of causing one's children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (IV Kings, xvi, 3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity.
On the basis of the Hebrew reading of III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Moloch has often been identified with Milcom, the national god of the Ammonites, but this identification cannot be considered as probable: as shown by the Greek Versions, the original reading of III (I) Kings, xi, 7, was not Molech but Milchom [cf. also III (I) Kings, xi, 5, 33]; and according to Deut., xii, 29-31; xviii, 9-14, the passing of children through fire was of Chanaanite origin [cf. IV (II) Kings, xvi, 3]. Of late, numerous attempts have been made to prove that in sacrificing their children to Moloch the Israelites simply thought that they were offering them in holocaust to Yahweh. In other words, the Melech to whom child-sacrifices were offered was Yahweh under another name. To uphold this view appeal is made in particular to Jer., vii, 31; xix, 5, and to Ezech., xx, 25-31. But this position is to say the least improbable. The texts appealed to may well be understood otherwise, and the prophets expressly treat the cult of Moloch as foreign and as an apostasy from the worship of the true God. The offerings by fire, the probable identity of Moloch with Baal, and the fact that in Assyria and Babylonia Malik, and at Palmyra Malach-bel, were sun-gods, have suggested to many that Moloch was a fire- or sun-god.
BAUDISSIN, Jahve et Moloch (Leipzig, 1874); SMITH, Religion of the Semites (London, 1894); SCHULTZ, Old Testament Theology, I (tr., Edinburgh, 1898); LAGRANGE, Etudes sur les Religions Semitiques (Paris, 1903).
FRANCIS E. GIGOT
Transcribed by Kenneth M. Caldwell
Dedicated to the volunteers of Birthright
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.