Pro-Choice=Abortion=baby torture

Posted: June 1, 2009 by mimi in Abortion, Politics, Social Issues

For those who oppose torture & are pro-choice, I ask you, how can you declare equality & justice for terrorists & lawbreakers (especially repeat offenders), & luxurious amenities in jails (like cable tv, workout gyms, etc) yet you are ok with the slaughter of innocent human babies who have committed no wrong, though you would sentence them to a brutal death by the means of “legal abortion”?    As early as at 10 wks, all the baby’s organs have already formed & they are conscience & aware of their surroundings & although a hot debate among some medical professionals other medical evidence shows that feel the pain of being aborted.   This is what a baby looks like at 10 weeks.  Many pro-abortion sources I’ve read tout that most abortions happen at 10 weeks and under, like this is a great compromise.  Even at a few weeks earlier, 7 weeks shows that the fetus is not just a ‘clump of cells’ as many want to claim to detach themselves from responsibilty in killing a human baby.  The baby is already taking form, having also formed the bodily organs.

So I pose this question, why is it so inhumane to torture a criminal/terrorists and the like, but totally within alledged bounds of ‘rights’ when cutting up a baby in the safety of it’s habitat, namely the womb of the woman?  How cruel & unusual is the punishment upon the unborn baby that it should be subject to being chopped up then suctioned out, then thrown in the trash like left over roadkill.  This is just sick & twisted.

I was questioned in one of my other older posts about the correctness of my using a picture of an aborted baby when it actually wasn’t an aborted baby but a stillborn.  The man also then admitted that though that particular picture wasn’t of an  aborted baby of that size, actual abortions of babies that size ARE being aborted.  There are plenty of other photos or even videos on the net to prove such.  Although, you don’t need the actual aborted picture to tell you so.  You just look up abortions & when they occur & look up fetal development & what they look like BEFORE they are aborted.  Then imagine what they look like after they get aborted using the procedures available today.   This act is just sick, twisted & sadistic.  Simply Horrific.

“peace if possible, truth at all costs.” -MartinLuther

  1. Anja says:

    Why is it inhumane to torture an alleged terrorist? Are you serious? You’re comparing fetal tissue with a person? Man, does the Klan need more wingnuts like you.

    • mimi says:

      “fetal tissue”?? that’s what YOU call it. I see that all that fetal tissue collectively formed as a human. You’re calling me a Klan? I’m trying to PROTECT babies, OF ALL RACES. It doesn’t matter what race or ethnic group a terrorist comes from. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist and a criminal, the same. A baby is a BABY is a HUMAN with rights, just as much as the woman housing that baby, and more rights than a criminal who gave up their rights when they violated the law(s).

  2. Anja says:

    They’re a baby when they’re born. Before that they are a fetus.

    Fetal tissue is never more important than the woman who is carrying it.

    • mimi says:

      have you ever seen ultrasounds? it’s so scary & utterly sad to think a person can be so cold & contemptuous towards an innocent, fragile life. i’m so sorry for you.

      • mimi says:

        whether you want to admit or not Anja, a fetus is just another word for developing BABY.

        “A fetus (also spelled foetus or fœtus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth. The plural is fetuses.

        In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development begins about eight weeks after fertilization, when the major structures and organ systems have formed,[2] and lasts until birth.[3]”

        an animal is still an animal no matter what stages it’s development. and a human is still a human the same. this is so sad that you seem to just have your mind made up to be ignorant of the truth of the matter. i’m so sorry.

  3. Anja says:

    You can have all the contempt for me that you like. When a fetus/foetus becomes more important than the woman you would gladly force to carry it, the world becomes a little nastier. But that’s the world of the religious right (what an oxymoron that is). They will force their self-righteous opinions on everyone.

    Have I seen ultrasounds? Plenty of them. Have I seen an aborted fetus? Yes I have. Unwanted fetus, safely aborted, makes a darn sight more sense than unwanted child – who grows into a disturbed adult. But that’s right, your lot don’t give a damn about them once they’re born. They’re just another filthy sinner to you.

    • Anja,
      Your contempt and presumption that a baby aborted is better than growing up into a disturbed adult is just your rationale that you are doing the baby a favor. We have a special needs child that is now 15. According to your logic we would have been doing him a favor to abort him rather then let him live. I also was a high risk abortion baby for reasons I would rather not going into detail over. I can assure you that I am grateful for my existence. I don’t sit around mopping wishing that I was aborted when I was a developing baby in the womb.

      I am NOT placing the baby’s value above the mom. They are both valuable. Life is precious. It is wrong to kill babies in the name of convenience and worse yet in the name of presumptive pity for what they will become if left alive.

    • mimi says:

      anja, i didn’t say i had contempt for you. you should read my comment again. i said i feel bad for YOU & wondered how can you (or any other human being) be so cold & contemptuous towards an innocent baby who is only yet to be born.
      i never considered the woman less important but value both lives. my opinion is not mine alone. it is based on truth and truth takes no sides. pregnancy is a a result, byproduct, if you will, of an act/behavior. if one is not qualified or ready or in want of a baby, then they should take other measures that would ensure the consequences are not justified by killing a BABY. each his own should be responsible first for their actions, then seek help if needed. just b/c i support the right for a child to live through pregnancy & birth, i still support the importance of those who brought that life into the world first take responsibility for the choice in having the sex that created that life. this is just plain selfishness at it’s best. go ahead & do whatever, no matter who it hurts.
      it’s a sick twisted thing for one to say that the sight of an aborted baby is better than an unwanted child. not all children born into non-ideal circumstances are unwanted or grow into a disturbed adult. that’s a weak justification for such a heinous crime. just to think you have seen aborted babies, as you say, and to not feel any sadness or think any wrong, is just terribly disturbing. are you one of the ‘unwanted child/disturbed adults’ you reference here? as Mr. T would, say, “i pitty the fool”. i will be praying for you, anja.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Actually, you’re all wrong, the correct term for a developing baby before 8 weeks is an embryo. The embryo will not even be recognizable until it becomes a fetus. Ideally, for the safety of the woman, any potential abortions should be performed before 8 weeks have passed. And before the 8 weeks have elapsed, no, you should not be able to see a full-grown baby or even a developing fetus. It is simply too small. However, the medical terminology doesn’t seem to be the argument to me, uninformed as you are. The argument seems to be at what point the soul has entered the body, and when it is actually murder to kill a child. As vehement as you are about believing that the soul enters the body upon conception, I do not agree, and nor do many others. Believing in your religion faithfully and never performing an abortion yourself is one thing, and more power to you, but to tell others that they must believe what you believe and to force them to do potentially dangerous things to their bodies… that’s wrong.

    Not convinced? Well, try this on for size: Take a vegetarian for example. Say this person believes that animals have souls, and said vegetarian wants to implement a law to keep you from eating animals and thus murdering them. If you think that’s ridiculous, then you have misunderstood the fundamental idea behind your entire argument. It is not the government’s job to tell us what to believe and how to pursue those beliefs. In fact, the U.S. government was created specifically to protect those who do not want to be forced into believing in a religion that they do not want to be a part of. What constitutes a human? What constitutes a soul? Who has a soul and when? And how do any of us know for sure? We don’t, simple as that. And if you claim you do know, then I sure as hell hope you’re a vegetarian so as to avoid hypocrisy.

    Furthermore, “partial-birth” (this is not a medical term, simply a law made by people who should try reading a book or two) abortion is illegal, so no, aborting very developed fetuses doesn’t happen often. The only reason to abort a fetus at a time that is later than the first trimester would be to prevent the death of the mother and the inevitable death of the baby. Birth defects, deaths, and premature births are actually more common in the United States than in many other countries. Thus, a fetus having developed without a brain or having died in the mother’s womb is not unheard of. In such cases, it would be dangerous not to abort the baby for the safety of the mother. The choice essentially comes down to aborting an already-doomed fetus or killing the mother as well for no good reason. Someone close to me has a medical condition called Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In case you have no idea what this is, this disease is an autoimmune disorder that causes the immune system to attack healthy body tissue and cells. The majority of people with SLE are female, and there is no cure for this disease. Should the woman with SLE become pregnant, she has a 40% chance of dying along with the baby. Temporarily healthy patients can indeed deliver a child safely, and they are glad for their chance to do so, but would you have mothers who are ill and whose immune system is killing the baby continue with the pregnancy until they both die? If your choice in situations involving medical complications is still to do nothing for the mother, then this is extremely misogynistic, illogical, and just sad.

    Not to mention, what about cases of rape? Should the victim of rape be forced to have the child of the rapist? Approximately 300,000 pregnancies result from rape every year. To force a victim to give birth to the child of her rapist is to force her to lose even more control than the initial crime has caused her to lose, and to condemn both her and the child to a painful life that will result in far less productivity in their lifetimes. My guess is that you have never been through rape, the possibility of becoming pregnant from it, and the psychological damage it does. And quite frankly, if you want to force me to do things with my body that I would rather not do, you are no better than a rapist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s