Supreme Court Debates Best Method To Execute A Baby
Can lawyers debate the butchering of innocent children while keeping a straight face, and a settled stomach? The answer, apparently, is “almost.”
The most poignant moment, however, occurred when the Planned Parenthood attorney mentioned that women often prefer an “intact” abortion instead of dismemberment. Roberts asked why they would prefer it, and the attorney stumbled over the answer and talked about how personal the choice was. But many in the room suddenly realized that we were talking about a mother preferring one method of executing her child over another. Regrettably, no one mentioned the oh-so-personal practice of late-term abortionists such as George Tiller, who dress up their victims after the murder and baptize their lifeless bodies in the mother’s presence, to help them say “good bye.”
Another obvious but unmentioned reason for preferring partial birth abortion could be to preserve the child’s organs for fresh, live harvesting and experimentation, rather than to get the mess that results from tearing off arms and legs one at a time (“disarticulation of extremities,” as they say). Very fresh harvesting occurs, for example, in fetal pancreas research published by University of Wisconsin-Madison) scientists, though it is not clear what abortion method is used.
I would encourage you to read the entire article.
November 12, 2006 - 08:24 PM on November 12th, 2006
Ahh…Tiller the baby Killer.
What scum. I can only hope this man is put away for a very, very long time.
November 12, 2006 - 10:38 PM on November 12th, 2006
These same judges who would halt the construction of a hospital to save a endangred frog or fly would go ahaead and allow a infant to be killed what a crime they have commited:mad:
November 12, 2006 - 10:40 PM on November 12th, 2006
Isn’t it amazing how far the abortion argument has come? From the legality of abortion at all (had to be early), all the way to debating over partial-birth abortion, which is just flat-out murder?
Yet I’d bet some of the same people that are ok with murdering a baby as it is about to be born are against the death penalty for even the most evil murderers. They’d go hold a candlelight protest vigil outside a prison as Charlie manson was executed. Just incredible…
November 13, 2006 - 12:07 AM on November 13th, 2006
I am curious here: when is abortion viable to you folks, and if it is not on what grounds do you assert that it isn’t?
November 13, 2006 - 05:55 AM on November 13th, 2006
@Robert: “Yet I’d bet some of the same people that are ok with murdering a baby as it is about to be born are against the death penalty for even the most evil murderers.”
I think this argument is contradicting for both sides, isn’t it. Objectively, somebody could only support both abortion AND death penalty or none of them…
Anything between is like some Nazi-thinking to distinguish between life being worth to stay alive and such that is not allowed to as it a) won’t have chance for social or health reasons or b) spoiled it’s chance by commiting a severe (murderrelated) crime.
November 13, 2006 - 08:59 AM on November 13th, 2006
It is quite simple Matthias..we are against abortion and speaking for the child that can not protect themselves against society…we are for the dp because we are protecting society from the condemed
November 13, 2006 - 02:18 PM on November 13th, 2006
I don’t believe that human life exists prior to the ability to make ethical choices. Consequently, I support abortion into the 5th year.
November 13, 2006 - 02:22 PM on November 13th, 2006
Re 7:
I don’t believe that human life exists prior to the ability to make ethical choices…
Ahh…this looks like justification to abort all politicians.
November 13, 2006 - 04:04 PM on November 13th, 2006
“Objectively, somebody could only support both abortion AND death penalty or none of them:”
This is a widely circulated myth. Objectively, this isn’t the case.
November 15, 2006 - 12:06 AM on November 15th, 2006
The difference between abortion and the death penalty is that abortion kills an innocent while the death penalty puts down what is essentially a rabid two legged animal. If it’s okay to put down vicious animals who are too stupid to know better than to bite, why shouldn’t it be okay to put down vicious criminals who know better, but choose to be vicious anyway?