Unfortunately all that is left to see is that bloody disgusting picture we have had to see for the last friggin year. When are you going to get tired of posting it? You ought to know by now we have all seen it a dozens times. It is a shame you have to live with that vision in your own head, but stop shoving it in ours!

So Stop Posting that fucking disgusting picture!

-- (me@me.me), March 21, 2001

Answers

>>>It's been said before, but it bears repeating.

>>> Pictures aren't arguments.

>>> -- Tarzan the Ape Man >>>(tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

The Truth is it is affective and effectively makes the point. The picture is gruesome to look at because guilt within us knows abortion to to be wrong and brings us to the realization of what we do to human babies.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

>>> When are you going to get tired of posting it?

When people like you understand that humans are more important than any animal.

Hey, it was you who started this thread. Don't start whining when you get opposing replies to the views you promote.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

So, are you saying that an unborn fetus can percieve pain more than a farm animal? One that's milked for 30 liters a day for 12 years straight? Or one that is injured so it has to be dragged by chains from a tractor? All these millions of sheep and cows that are being burned to death, are they not at least as sensitive as a blastula that isn't even breathing yet?

Give me a break. Why don't you go destroy some statues or something.

-- Dan Doolittle (doolittle@farm.com), March 21, 2001.

You idiot. I was not opposing your views, I was merely trying not to look at that picture again.

You are doing more disservice to our cause than helping! Extremeism never helped any cause, it only alienates people.

Now please stop posting that fucking picture!

sheesh. Some peoples children...

-- (me@me.me), March 21, 2001.

>>>Extremeism never helped any cause,...

Truth is truth whether popular or accepted by the few in opposition or not.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

>>>So, are you saying that an unborn fetus can percieve pain more than a farm animal?

A human life is more important than ANY animal, period! Where is the same outrage you have for animal death placed on human death?

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

The Truth is it is affective and effectively makes the point. The picture is gruesome to look at because guilt within us knows abortion to to be wrong and brings us to the realization of what we do to human babies.

LOL. So how about a picture of a badly deformed miscarried baby, with its organs outside its body and mangled lumps of bloody flesh? Is that not as gruesome, simply because it wasn't the result of an abortion?

-- (yuck@eww.gross), March 21, 2001.

>>>Is that not as gruesome, simply because it wasn't the result of an abortion?

Yes it is. The difference is one is preventable the other isn't.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

Yes it is. The difference is one is preventable the other isn't.

But the picture itself is just as gruesome. In some cases, you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, based on the photo.

-- (eww@yuck.gross), March 21, 2001.

point?

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

The point is that this statement has been proven false:

The picture is gruesome to look at because guilt within us knows abortion to to be wrong and brings us to the realization of what we do to human babies.

In fact, the picture being gruesome to look at has nothing at all to do with guilt, since similar pictures that are not the result of abortion are just as gruesome and there's no guilt involved.

-- (eww@yuck.gross), March 21, 2001.

Posting that picture is like posting a picture of the dead strewn across a battlefield and expecting that for this reason alone people should never go to war again. It is ridiculous.

It is interesting, though, that many who want to invade a woman's privacy would be the first to go to war again over some oil field in the middle east, jeopardizing adult lives.

But then again, the lives of adults, REAL humans, never matter much to fundie/abortion extremists.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 21, 2001.

This world would be a much better place if it were only inhabited by creatures like this instead of 6 billion like "The Truth Shall Set You Free"

-- just a comment (no@offense.please), March 21, 2001.

baaaaad.

-- sheep (sheeps@r.us), March 21, 2001.

The picture I posted was result of a preventable late term partial birth abortion. An abortion proceedure so heinous it promotes outrage in even many of the pro-choice crowds eyes.

There is no better way to describe partial birth abortion than to show the evidence. Evidence you and others want kept from the discussion because it damages your claim the baby is a simple piece of unwanted tissue.

The picture makes it human.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

The picture I posted was result of a preventable late term partial birth abortion.

As most here know, I volunteered as a clinic escort for many years, until recently when work and my health impeded me. I've known many women who've had abortions (I guess it's no surprise that many of those who choose to volunteer as escorts have had to brave the protestors themselves). I have known only two women who have had late-term abortions, one of which had two. In all three of these cases, the fetuses in question were terribly malformed to the point of not surviving to full-term, but the pregnancies were advanced enough that they required a D & X procedure. All of these pregancies were wanted pregnancies, both of the women have gone on to have healthy babies (the woman who had two abortions discovered a genetic condition in her husband's family that caused the defects).

These procedures are incredibly stressful on the body. No woman would choose to have a late term abortion if she had any other option. Forbidding this medical procedure because a few extremists find it distasteful is ridiculous.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

>>>No woman would choose to have a late term abortion if she had any other option.

This is a LIE.

Abortion rights leader urges end to "half truths".

What abortion rights supporters failed to acknowledge, Fitzsimmons said, is that the vast majority of these abortions are performed in the 20-plus week range on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers. "The abortion rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else," he said.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

If you're going to call me a liar, the least you could do is provide a working link.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

LIAR link

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

and another tastey morsel from the story.

"When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think it makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret."

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

and another.

When Fitzsimmons criticizes his movement for its handling of this issue, he points the finger at himself first. In November 1995, he was interviewed by "Nightline" and, in his own words, "lied," telling the reporter that women had these abortions only in the most extreme circumstances of life endangerment or fetal anomaly.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

>>>But then again, the lives of adults, REAL humans, never matter much to fundie/abortion extremists.

>>> -- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 21, 2001.

But then again, the lives of REAL human babies, never mattered much to pro choice extremists.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

Whoa! I think you'd better read the rest of that link, Einstein.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists weighed in with an opinion from its Executive Board in January, saying it could identify "no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life of the mother or preserve the health of the woman."

It added, however, that the procedure, which ACOG called intact dilation and extraction (D&X) and others call intact dilation and evacuation (D&E), "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."

I'm sure you didn't mean to contradict yourself like that, but it sure makes my job easier. Thanks!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

>>> Forbidding this medical procedure because a few extremists find it distasteful is ridiculous.

>>> -- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

NOT forbidding this medical procedure because a few extremists find it distasteful is ridiculous.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

So now the entire American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology are "a few extremists"? Oh, that's really sad.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

>>>"may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,

What has this to do with your claim?

Remember?->No woman would choose to have a late term abortion if she had any other option.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

My claim is, no woman would choose to have a late-term procedure if she had another option. Why should a woman give up her life and/or health so you can sleep better at night?

BTW- out of 26 posts on this thread, fourteen are from you. Come out of the closet Ain't and show you're not ashamed of your actual posting identity. Be a man and be yourself.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

another tidbit

"If the debate is whether the fetus feels pain, we lose. If the debate in the public arena is what's the effect of anesthesia, we'll lose. If the debate is whether or not women ought to be entitled to late abortion, we probably will lose.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

>>>Whoa! I think you'd better read the rest of that link, Einstein.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists weighed in with an opinion from its Executive Board in January, saying it could identify...

You must of missed this MINOR detail below hey Tarzan?

ACOG was immediately taken to task by a group of physicians who oppose the procedure.

By endorsing a practice "for which no peer-reviewed or safety data exist," ACOG appears to be violating its own standards, said members of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth), a group of about 400 physicians, many of whom are also ACOG members.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

Another FACT you overlooked in the article Tarzan...

Diana Grossheim, from Huntington Beach, Calif., may be one of those women. Grossheim had an intact D&E in 1995. She now has an incompetent cervix.

When Grossheim's almost 21-week-old fetus died in utero, she said her physician told her she had two choices: labor, which was described as up to 48 hours of torture, or intact D&E, which her doctor described as "more merciful."

Grossheim said the procedure was "three days of pure hell" -- both physical and mental.

She had to stay in a hotel and go back and forth to the clinic for laminaria changes. She was afraid she might deliver the baby in the hotel. On her second night, the pain was terrible -- she was vomiting, cramping and screaming all night.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

Those who perform the procedure say it is safer for the woman and more convenient for the surgeon. Although the whole procedure takes three days, to allow for the women to come in for frequent laminaria insertions to dilate her cervix, the actual operation is scheduled on an outpatient basis and takes only five to 15 minutes.

Some providers say this method is safer than the classic D&E procedure in which the fetus in dismembered in the womb, leaving the mother at greater risk for internal perforations caused by either the slip of the surgeon's instruments or bones from the fetus broken inside her body.

Come on, Ain't. Be a man and be yourself.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

Oh yeah big time thats Aint.

-- Dudesy (dudesy@37.com), March 21, 2001.

Opponents of the procedure assert, however, that the claim is without medical merit, and note that one of the five women at Clinton's veto ceremony had five miscarriages after her intact D&E. The procedure, opponents say, is potentially risky and actually contraindicated for fertility enhancement.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

Wow, 19 out of 32 posts. You're in rare form today. Go Ain't go! I can feel the spittle coming across your keyboard as you breath through your mouth, huffing and puffing with the effort of spamming enough posts to make people ignore the way you shot yourself in the foot.

It's a beautiful thing. Thank-you, Ain't. This is the most I've laughed since the original Darrell Scott posts. You made my day!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

In fact, many of them already do a variation on the intact D&E that would be completely legal, even if the bill to outlaw "partial birth" abortions passed. In that variation, the physician makes sure the fetus is dead before extracting it from the birth canal. The bill would ban only those procedures in which a live fetus is partially vaginally delivered.

-- (heres@the.solution), March 21, 2001.

It seems your arguments have run out of steam so-to-say. Nothing more to say?

Your position of defending such a horrible act is after all indefensible. I will accept this as your concession Tarzan.

-- The Truth Shall Set You Free (abortion kills your children@NOW.com), March 21, 2001.

Well, well, well. Look what Mr. Fitzsimmons has to say about Partial Birth Abortion now.

Two years later, Fitzsimmons' organization calls PBA bans "futile"

This is not a startling revelation. Even some leaders of the "pro- life" movement have acknowledge the futility of the “partial birth” abortion campaign:

Mr. Mark Crutcher, the President of Life Dynamics in Denton, Texas has stated publicly that the "partial birth” abortion proposals are "a scam being perpetrated by people on our side of the issue for fundraising purposes;"

Mr. Paul deParrie, the editor of the anti-abortion magazine, Life Advocate, has called this proposal a "futile and worthless ban;" and

Ms. Colleen Parro, the Director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, freely acknowledges that this legislation "doesn't stop any abortions."

How many posts from Ain't will this generate?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

It seems your arguments have run out of steam so-to-say. Nothing more to say?

Oh, I'm sorry. I just had to wipe the tears from my eyes Ain't. I'll be sure to post more stuff so I can watch you make an even bigger ass out of yourself. Damn, this is too easy.

Your position of defending such a horrible act is after all indefensible. I will accept this as your concession Tarzan.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Sure thing, Ain't. Whatever you say!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

Oh yeah big time thats Aint.

-- Dudesy (dudesy@37.com), March 21, 2001.

I thought Dudesy was Ain't?

-- (I'm Sooo Confussed@now.com), March 21, 2001.

I think someone is pulling our leg.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.

It's Ain't. No one else underlines things in their posts.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

Tar, I think you finally drove Ain't around the bend. He's not posting any more. Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that "Truth" is really Ain't. Nobody else has such a prominent hard-on for Tar, and no one else does that broken-record repeat-posting thing like Ain't does.

This is really getting funny. Tar, yank his chain some more. See how high you can make that monkey jump! Dance, baby, dance!

-- Dudesy (dudesy@37.com), March 21, 2001.

Concerning the original question

"Why is it that you are so concerned about unborn fetuses, yet you show no compassion for the millions and millions of animals that suffer through horrid conditions to provide your hamburger, chicken tenders, and sausage bisquits?

b> I cannot speak for all people who oppose abortion, but I can speak for myself. I oppose the horrid conditions that millions and millions of animals suffer through to provide us food, but I do not oppose the use of animals for food.

"Do you not think that farm animals feel pain? Do you not think they have emotions? Does your belief in God allow you to mistreat other intelligent beings with a clear conscience? "

I believe that farm animals feel pain. I believe they have some forms of emotion, but not nearly as developed as humans. My belief in god does not allow me to mistreat animals with a clear conscience, but it does allow me to eat meat.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 21, 2001.

.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 21, 2001.