Support abortion? Here’s how it’s done

This month, the so-called “enlightened progressives” celebrate their 1973 Supreme Court ruling to legally kill unwanted or inconvenient unborn babies for “quality of life” reasons.

Those who believe in the dignity of all human life will be protesting against this terrible Supreme Court ruling. By denying personhood status to unborn babies, the Supreme Court legalized the killing of innocent human beings for quality of life reasons.

Here are the abortionists’ horribly “cruel and unusual” procedures for killing unborn babies that the Supreme Court legalized:

Suction aspiration/suction curettage – The baby, while alive and feeling all the excruciating pain, is vacuumed into a tube, either whole or while being torn apart into “pieces” while alive, and “delivered” into a jar where all its remains are viewed to make certain the whole baby was vacuumed out and killed.

Salt poisoning (saline injection) — A needle full of a salt solution is injected through the mother’s abdomen so as to reach the baby’s sac.

The baby is slowly poisoned and the outer layer of skin is burned off while it is still alive. It can take several hours for the baby to die a horribly painful death. The mother usually gives birth to her dead or dying baby within 24 hours after this procedure.

Prostaglandin chemical abortion — Chemicals are injected into the mother’s amniotic sac. The uterus contracts intensely to push out the baby. These contractions are quite violent and can crush the living baby, sometimes even decapitate the baby while alive.

Dilation and extraction (D&X) also known as partial birth abortion — The procedure takes place in five steps, with the abortionist first grabbing the baby’s legs, while alive and kicking, with forceps. Next, the baby’s leg is pulled out of the birth canal. The entire body is then delivered, except for the head.

While the baby is still alive and able to feel all the excruciating pain, the abortionist then jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are opened to enlarge the skull. And lastly, after the scissors are removed, a suction tube is inserted. The baby’s brains are sucked out and the skull collapses. The dead baby is now completely removed from the mother.

The excruciating pain to the unborn baby, as it is horribly killed via the above abortion procedures can only be imagined.

But the baby is not the only victim. The mother also experiences pain, not only during the abortion, but, as in the vast majority of post abortion mothers, they experience intense emotional pain that they live with for the rest of their lives.

What kind of people were these Supreme Court justices that approved of this? What kind of people are these abortionists that do these horribly cruel and unusual killing procedures to innocent human beings? And just as important, what kind of culture would promote this?

Stephen Allen

Peachtree City, Ga.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
A rhetorical question.

How many of you fellas out there would support laws restricting what you can do with your body regarding procreation? Testicles are chock full of potential and they are a major contributor to unwanted pregnancies. It should be obvious that some sort of mitigation is needed.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
ROLLING STONE-THANKS!

If life begins at conception - and it is necessary for the male sperm to connect in the woman's body - before conception occurs - let's discuss the many ways for controlling that sperm!! We're listening fellas!!

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
It;s been a long time since the sperm had to enter a female's

body for conception to occur--there is the petri dish, in vitro, and many other ways for an egg to be fertilized. In fact there have been cases where a female got pregnant without penetration at all--sperm in ladies underwear after sex---

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mytmite

Honey - no mortal without male sperm and female egg . . .it takes both. Right? Dish, penetration, etc., etc., etc. is not the point. IT TAKES TWO!!

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Just refuting your previous statement that it takes penetration-

sperm and egg in a petri dish-does not take penetration. Now we could clone people as we have with farm animals with them never even meeting each other. Not much fun but possible/

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
MytMite, this is fascinating,

MytMite, this is fascinating, I never heard of conception from sperm in a women’s underwear without penetration. Pardon me for asking but I just got to know.

Did she wear the underwear in the normal manner allowing the sperm to travel up to the vagina, or did she have to stand on her head, giving some credibility to the ‘trickle down’ theory?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rhetorical Answer

What if it was you only that made the decision for someone else whether they live or die? Personal actions sometimes have great consequence, depending on your point of view.

Don't assume too much Rolling.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Abortion Argument Fails to Persuade

Stephen Allen propounds a seriously weak argument for rescinding abortion rights in this letter to The Citizen. His emotional appeals criticizing the methods of aborting fetuses play well to his like-minded peers, but fail to advance any moral imperative to end abortions. Instead, the introduction of a more humane procedure for ending a pregnancy would counter his entire argument. Until pro-life advocates discover a consistent strategy to value life at all levels (local and world poverty, political prisoners, death row inmates, soldiers on the battlefield, etc.) and address the costs associated with raising an additional 1,000,000 unwanted (at least by their mothers) children a year in America alone, they are merely preaching to the choir.

Today, abortion is a matter of economics rather than morals in our country. Any argument that fails to grapple with money is assured of falling onto deaf ears.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
STF - Two

Two separate arguments in your comments, one fiscal and one moral. On a fiscal basis, few could argue with it. The moral argument is not clear until you consider the function of government. First and foremost to protect Life. Consider this, if you had a son that you knew would be costly to raise because of an inherited trait, would you kill him? Certainly not. If you knew this before he was born, would you kill him? This is where the debate is and what it's all about, where does life begin? Some would suggest that it begins at the moment of conception. Some would argue that it begins only when the fetus could survive outside the womb. In the latter argument, this point in time changes with technology. Right? So, what if you could somehow keep a fetus alive from the moment of conception? Would that be when life begins? So, is it a technology question? Now were back to the ultimate question.

If life begins at the moment of conception, does the government have the obligation to protect it? I don't think you would argue against that it should at a minimum protect a fetus that could survive outside the womb.

I for one believe firmly that the moral question should be posed against the backdrop of the function of our government. What direction does the moral compass point STF? Individual freedom requires that we not infringe on the Life, Liberty or Property of others, even those still in the womb.

We should always attempt to err on the side of Life, if we don't then we are playing God. That's a position way, way above all people's pay grade.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

I for one believe firmly that the moral question should be posed against the backdrop of the function of our government. What direction does the moral compass point STF? Individual freedom requires that we not infringe on the Life, Liberty or Property of others, even those still in the womb.

What is the 'government' saying about that so important ingredient in forming mortals - the male sperm? What is the government's responsibility ? Should the 'government' even be involved regarding the male testicles?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Sometimes DM

Your writing is incomprehensible, would you care to try again? Put some thought into it please! Think before you write.

Thanks

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

What is the government saying about the sperm that comes from your penis and is an important ingredient in forming a human? Now if you don't comprehend that question - you need to take your head out from where the sun don't shine!!

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Pragmatic Abortion Considerations

PTCO – You make the moral argument that requires thoughtful analysis. Conversely, Mr. Allen makes an emotional appeal condemning the METHOD of abortion rather than the rightness of abortion, and, thus he wastes our time. If a painless and humane strategy to engineer an abortion is used, Mr. Allen’s criticisms become moot.

The fiscal arguments for retaining abortion are very strong for a pragmatist like me. I have little appetite for providing financial support for 1 million additional children a year whose mothers care so little for them that they wish them not born. On the other hand, once born, it will be difficult to ignore their plight and abandon to the streets those who are non-adoptable.

If life begins at conception, then widely used contraceptives like birth control pills and IUDs constitute murder since they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, thus “killing” the viable life form. This makes countless Christian women abortionists. It seems that the definition of viable life is arbitrary, and the real issue is where one will draw the line. I see the Roe decision as a reasonable compromise and respect the views of others who disagree. However, I do not respect emotional appeals that ignore pragmatic considerations.

Recent Comments