Interesting web page is, i\\\\’ll see you later one more timea…

Kristen Powers is the splittin’ image of a young Faye Dunaway c.1967 (Bonnie & Clyde).

jmost558 on October 24, 2006 at 1:07 PM

No, not quite… sorry… nice try.

http://www.nndb.com/people/884/000022818/

I the comment above, while addressing the abortion in relation to the term term “murder,” I accidentally stated, “Because abortion is legal it cannot, technically speaking, be termed “abortion.”

I meant to say that “Because abortion is legal it cannot, technically speaking, be termed “murder.”

The last word in the sentence should have read “murder,” rather than “abortion,” as in “technically speaking, abortion cannot be termed murder because abortion is legal in the United States.”

William

I love how there was no shouting, or babbling at mach 5, with all four women trying to out talk, or talk over one another, so that all one could hear was loud cackling, as takes place on “The View” so that audience members cannot understand anything that is being said.

Regarding abortion itself, I share LaShawn Barber’s sentiments but not the technical term “Murder.” Abortion of a baby is barbaric and should be illegal, but it is not illegal. Because abortion is legal it cannot, technically speaking, be termed “abortion.”

Abortion is the dismemberment, and slaughter by other means as well, of innocent, completely human persons. It is such an expression of disregard for the lives of others, and such a contradiction to the term “woman’s right to choose,” or “reproductive rights.”

Why?

Because females are slaughtered via abortion, often in greater numbers in relation to abortions of baby boys. Many females are terminated just because the parents wish to have boys, not girls.

Blacks are also disproportionately terminated-dismembered via abortion, as approximately 35% of all abortions in the United States are performed on black children. That is, of 100 abortions performed, 35 of them are performed on 13% of the population, while 65 of the remaining abortions are performed on the remaining 87% of the population.

Can anyone say “racism?” Is it not obvious that there is a clear targeting of back babies via abortion? Of course there is!

Regarding the comment that a baby is a parasite or a tick, let’s look at the scientific accuracy of that statement….

… Well, er…. there just ISN’T any scientific accuracy to the statement that a baby is a parasite. A person who holds such a view is using poetic license, not scientific accuracy or scientific fact!

A parasite is an organism of one species which either attaches to, or invades an organism of another species from outside that species, which we will call the “host.” That means that one organism, the parasite, must be of a different species from the host species.

The parasite draws off the host, providing no benefits to the host, but eventually leading to the damage and/or destruction, and eventual death of the host.

Unlike the parasite, a human baby is an organism of the same species as her mother.

A human baby does not invade her mother from the outside, but comes to being from within mother via natural, biological means of reproduction, via conception-fertilization in which the genetic material of the father and the mother have blended, resulting in a new, genetically unique, living human embryonic zygote, a new human being, the process of reproduction for which mother’s body is naturally prepared and designed to perform and partake in.

Baby does not normally draw on mother and damage her or lead to her death as a parasite would. Baby embeds into the uterine wall initially but in a short time baby is self contained within the womb in her amniotic sac, and does not draw directly from mother for sustenance, as a parasite would do. Instead baby receives her nutrition, etc., via the semi-separate home of the amniotic sac within mother’s womb, connected to mother indirectly, and receiving nutrition via the umbilical cord which is attached to the placenta which is attached to the wall of the uterus.

Baby is involved in a biological and metabolic dependency on mother which is temporary. Mother does benefit from pregnancy, as some women with endometriosis have found that pregnancy has helped with that condition, and mothers who have given birth and breastfeed their baby enjoy an increased protection from breast cancer, and enjoy the benefits of the calming effects of prolactin which is released when mother nurses baby, a benefit shared by both mother and baby.

No, a baby is not a parasite.

For those who choose to love, a baby is a blessing and a joy.

Rather than promote and fund abortion in our culture, more opportunities and support could be given to women to keep their babies and to continue to enhance their lives, or, if they choose not to keep their babies, more opportunities and support could be provided to aid in the adoption process, so that so many millions of parents seeking to adopt may take these tiny treasures into their homes and provide them with the love and guidance they so richly deserve!

I hope to see more episodes of the women of The Vent in the future!

William

This weekend my syndicated column appeared here on Townhall per usual. The dialogue it developed, I felt, was beneficial on several levels. It exposed the weakness in the arguments of those who still – all too often – are trying to make the issue……

When you state that fetal organ harvesting is of very little value, how little value do you mean? If the value say on the average came to only $500 per aborted child, this would be no small fortune. This would amount to considerably more than “very little.” I am not so naive or ignorant to think that even one kidney from each aborted child wouldn’t be worth considerably more than $500. Abortion is already a multi-million if not multi-billion dollar industry. If “stem cell research” is allowed I believe the abortion industry will become a multi-trillion dollar industry almost overnight. Think of all the parts that can be “saved” from being wasted. Corneas, livers, hearts, lungs, hands, feet. Not possible, someone might object, just give it time and research and the not possible turns into, not possible YET. This still doesn’t even scratch the surface of experimentation done on LIVING muscle, skeletal, nerve, brain tissue for admittedly astounding gains in medical capabilities.

Woohoo! I win!

Btw, another argument that I recall about abortion to counter the following:

“It’s my body, I can do what I want with it!”

“Keep your laws off my body.”

I’ve responded to these comments using these ideas.

At a given time in a womans life she will have a penis in her body…

Yes, I said penis… (The liberal moron will be floored and will start thinking about sex)

However, this situation isn’t meant to illustrate when a woman is having sex – no, rather, it’s during the time that she might be pregnant with a baby boy, a male.

The baby boy has a penis and it’s inside the mother… Hence, there is another body that is involved and that should be greatly considered.

Do I support embryonic stem cell research? Not until valid attempts are exhausted on getting everything possible from adult and cord blood stem cells. And the promise there far exceeds the desires for it from the ‘fetal tissue gang’, who support embryonic research more for political than scientific reasons.

And before everybody says ‘You obviously don’t have anybody who would benefit close to you’ , both my Alzeimer’s-afflicted mother and my son’s neurological tumors are areas of stem cell research. But I want ethical science to rule the day, not science aimed at socially engineering our perspective of human life.

I think KP might agree with me that a sonogram should be mandatory, strictly from an informational viewpoint alone. It would be the only way that the unborn would have their say, even if only visually.

I guess we can all agree that tick and parasite are not apt words for the unborn, but what I really want to know is: who says mee-morandum?

notanexpert on October 21, 2006 at 12:55 AM

I cocked my head to the side upon hearing that curious pronunciation as well. :) But then it occurred to me that she was referring to the blog memeorandum.

It seems to me that most people would agree that abortion is not the ideal scenario, and the real dilemma that is often neglected is how best to limit it.

I think this Vent is excellent in that regard as it addresses our cultural attitudes and perhaps even shapes them. Ideally, even though abortion be legal, individuals would strongly choose to avoid it out of respect and their own sense of morality. It seems that culture may dictate propriety more than law.

I’m looking forward to more Vents, and I’m curious to see how your respectful debates progress. Thank you, again.

See: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/20/the-vent/ The ladies are talking about this post from La Shawn Barber’s Corner. The original source is this (typical liberal thoughtful language so be warned), where a female liberal blogger announces her int…

Either it is new, or I am just now seeing it.

I agree thanks La Shawn for not mincing your words and as in the lyrics of Mr. Falsetto,AARON NEVILLE, “Tell it like it is”

I can’t express how much I am in agreement with La Sawn’s comments.

Thanks La Shawn for standing up for all the tiny innocents being slaughtered on the alter of politically correctness, simply for someone’s individual ‘choice’.

{sigh}

Good question. Secular Liberals worship at the church of Humanism (hence, Secular Humanism). Effectively, the worship themselves.

Their moral codes are relative, and they change as best suites their individual moods. Sometimes they promote view points that are contrary to the Western Biblical status quo, just because they are contrary.

They often like to call themselves Moderates, yet there is nothing ‘moderate’ about their views. Their view are actually very radical. A form of radical fundamentalism, but coming from the far left instead of the far right.

Very much similar to the liberal socialist views Hitler espoused before taking control of the German Government in the 1930s and creating his fascist government.

Currently the law is that all the aborted fetuses must be destroyed. Stem cell research will allow the cannibalization of all these aborted children for the use of their organs to save lives.

It would be very naive for us to think that some late term aborted children are not rushed out of the room and kept alive in incubators for organ harvesting at a later date. All that would be necessary for the organs to be used to save lives would be some “stem cell research.”

Experimentation on humans has always been a tempting scientific line because of the tremendous knowledge one can gain by doing it. No one could justify it on even death row prisons, but on the unborn it is about to become a reality, if it hasn’t already.