Abortion » babies

Numbers And Statistics I Found A Little Disturbing

admin — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:05:30 +0000

Some of these statistics are as recent as I can find them and if I made a mistake on any of them or anybody has more recent data on the subject please feel free to correct me. And yes I’m very aware that I look and sound like absolute in this video and that I’m probably all over the map but hopefully you can make some sense of it. My questions remain the same though. Why can’t we instead of arguing about abortion, start encouraging adoption and encouraging others to adopt and why is it that most pro lifers only care about the baby while it’s in the mothers stomach? After that they stop giving a and go on about their life.

AFCARS Website:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report10.htm

A Website About Adoption:
http://adopting.adoption.com/

Duration : 0:6:51

[youtube 2SX5QMJpZl0]

Abortion Video

admin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:18:02 +0000

Video on the harms of abortion.

Oh.My.Damn.

Duration : 0:4:31

[youtube OcdpWoF8AXk]

How to defeat a Pro Abortion argument

admin — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:31:01 +0000

From Wretched TV; Todd Friel & Scott Klusendorf discuss how to defeat most Pro Abortion arguments using the SLED acronym.

Duration : 0:6:51

[youtube Q_s6RG2vSvE]

facts about abortion and pics

admin — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:30:31 +0000

the song in this is there goes my life by Kenny Chenseny

Duration : 0:4:15

[youtube TcLzG9ZyZkc]

Born Alive Infants Protection Act – President Bush Signs / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

admin — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:37:42 +0000

Born Alive Infants Protection Act – President Signs / Video. President Signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act Remarks by the President in Signing of H.R. 2175, Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Pittsburgh Hilton. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 12:58 P.M. EDT. THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you all very much for this bill signing ceremony. I’m pleased to sign it in the great city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The history of our country is the story of a promise, a promise of life and liberty made at our founding and fulfilled over the centuries in our laws. It is a story of expanding inclusion and protection for the ignored and the weak and the powerless. And now we extend the promise and protection to the most vulnerable members of our society. Today I sign the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive — including an infant who survives an abortion procedure — is considered a person under federal law. (Applause.) This reform was passed with the overwhelming support of both political parties, and it is about to become the law of the land. I appreciate so very much Senator Rick Santorum and Congressman Steve Chabot from Ohio for sponsoring this important piece of legislation. I also appreciate Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Congresswoman Melissa Hart for coming, as well. I want to thank the Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Bishop Wuerl, for being here. It’s good to see you again, Bishop. I appreciate Hadley Arkes, the Professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions at Amherst University. I want to thank Jill Stanek, registered nurse, Labor and Delivery Unit, Christ Hospital and Medical Center, for being here, as well. I appreciate Gianna Jessen, who is an abortion survivor and a pro-life advocate. I want to thank Dr. Watson Bowes, who is a Professor Emeritus of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the University of North Carolina. I want to thank you all for coming. It’s important that you’re here, to send a signal that you’re dedicated to the protection of human life. The issue of abortion divides Americans, no question about it. Yet today we stand on common ground. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act establishes a principle in America law and American conscience: there is no right to destroy a child who has been born alive. (Applause.) A child who is born has intrinsic worth and must have the full protection of our laws. Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly — see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family, as well. (Applause.) They reflect our image, and they are created in God’s own image. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. (Applause.) It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights. This law is a step toward the day when America fully becomes, in the words of Pope John Paul II, “a hospitable, a welcoming culture.” Our society has enough compassion, wealth and love to care for mothers and their children, and to see the promise and potential of every life. In protecting the vulnerable and the weak, the imperfect and the unwanted, you are affirming a culture of life. I’m grateful for your perseverance on behalf of this noble cause. I want to thank you for your hard work. I appreciate your care for every member of the human family. Thank you for coming today. It’s now my honor and pleasure to sign into law the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. END 1:04 P.M. EDT. Public domain video. For Immediate Release; Office of the Press Secretary; August 5, 2002.

Duration : 0:5:37

[youtube 6Mmi-Ul4iqo]

Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 News / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

admin — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:15:30 +0000

Description: George Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 Date: 11/5/2003 Length: 11.85 minutes Political Video Link: http://www.politicalvideo.org/node/1031Original Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html
This item is part of the collection: blip.tv
Creative Commons license: Public Domain. The Congress finds and declares the following: A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion — an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant — is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. The partial birth abortion has been performed legally in the United States for years. It is neither a “rare” procedure, nor is it done only for babies who are severely deformed or dying. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure. In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are “purely elective.” In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that “elective” does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). In April of 2000, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Stenberg vs. Carhart decision, which was handed down in June, 2000. The Court struck down a Nebraska statute which had banned partial-birth abortion. Nebraska, as well as over two dozen other states, had banned this procedure, but the Court said the procedure should remain legal. One of the reasons given was that any proposed ban must allow the procedure “for the health of the mother.” Fr. Pavone was present at the Supreme Court both for the oral arguments and on the day the decision was issued. At a press conference on the Court steps, Father asked the lead attorney from the pro-abortion side whether any evidence presented to the Court had identified even a single medical circumstance in which this procedure was the only way to preserve the mother’s health. Of course, none could be cited, and the reason is that none exist. The Court argued, furthermore, that a “health reason” for the Partial-birth abortion procedure was present if, in the judgment of the physician, it was safer than alternative procedures. One of the problems with this line of argument is that one can identify many circumstances in which it is safer for the mother to deliver the child normally than to have a partial-birth abortion. Normal delivery excludes the dangers that arise from inverting the position of the child, and from inserting surgical instruments into the birth canal. Why not argue, therefore, that “live-birth abortion” should be legal as a safer alternative to partial-birth abortion. People like Jill Stanek have exposed this practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads. On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Pro-abortion forces, not having the support of the American public, challenged the law in court. Federal Courts in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case, and is reviewing the decisions of the 8th and 9th Circuit courts. Oral arguments were heard on Wednesday, November 8, 2006. On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion.

Duration : 0:11:50

[youtube 2Ks0e-90rrU]

Partial-Birth Abortion – Obama Debate Comments / Partial Birth Abortion Ban Video

admin — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:15:08 +0000

Obama Partial Birth Abortion / His Televised Debate Comments

Images and text courtesy of National Right to Life. Video clip courtesy of MSNBC. Published by rosaryfilms of Secret of the Rosary Films. The pictures in the video are not fiction. The partial birth abortion is not a rare procedure. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). People like Jill Stanek have exposed a practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads. On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion. The procedure in question is properly called “partial-birth abortion” because, as even secular sources acknowledge, it requires the doctor to deliver the unborn child partially from the uterus, feet first, leaving the baby’s head inside the womb. The doctor then uses scissors and a hollow needle to empty the skull of its contents. The unborn baby’s head then collapses and the doctor removes the dead baby entirely from the mother’s body. Given the nature of the procedure, the congressmen who drafted legislation to prohibit it, the “Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995″, defined the procedure as follows: “an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery”. The doctors who perform this barbaric act and those who seek to justify it attempt to hide its nature by describing it euphemistically as “intact dilation and evacuation/extraction” or as “intrauterine cranial decompression. “Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth” (PHACT), a group of more than 300 medical specialists organized to counter the misinformation provided by the abortion industry of the United States, pointed out: “Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the health of a woman or to protect her future fertility; in fact, the procedure can pose grave dangers to the woman”. Many people argue that the anesthetics used in the process kill the baby, so death to the child is painless. However the American Society of Anesthesiologists testified to Congress that this is simply not true. On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: “…the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.” As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts. In this country medical doctors are partially delivering babies and then killing them. These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed.

Duration : 0:3:32

[youtube C9fCITIyyo4]

Obama & Abortion / The Freedom of Choice Act / His Intentions Revealed / Pro-Life Video

admin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:44:27 +0000

Obama & Abortion / The So-Called Freedom of Choice Act Video. All text, images and video clips from Fair Use or the public domain. A year ago today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) stood before Planned Parenthood (PP) and vowed that his first priority as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, FOCA would “codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman’s right to choose in all 50 states.” On April 7, 2007, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the Act in Congress, they knew that it was far more than a government “guarantee” of abortion. If enacted, FOCA would obliterate hundreds of state laws that protect women, parents, children, and health care workers, while forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for millions of abortions. It would overturn commonsense laws like parental notification, conscience protections, abortion waiting periods, informed consent, and regulations for women’s health. In essence, FOCA would tilt the table for abortion. Obama’s support of FOCA hits particularly close to home among African-Americans, whose women and children have been preyed upon for decades by the eugenically minded Planned Parenthood. This connection has been pointed out again to the NAACP, who held their 99th annual conference with a sizeable pro-life presence. Together with Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., black leaders from across the country demonstrated at the convention where both presidential candidates spoke. The pro-life coalition is part of the growing movement of African-Americans who understand the “biggest struggle for civil rights today is for the rights of the unborn.” While the NAACP national leadership and Sen. Obama stubbornly champion the abortion industry, groups like Planned Parenthood are profiting from the disproportionate number of black pregnancies that end inside their walls. Given the devastating effect of abortion on one in every two black pregnancies, shouldn’t the NAACP be leading the charge against it? The promoters of the FOCA sometimes claim that its purpose is to “codify Roe v. Wade,” the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. But the key binding provisions of the bill would go further than Roe, invalidating all of the major types of pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decades since Roe. “The claim that the bill would ‘codify Roe’ is just a marketing gimmick by the proponents,” explained Johnson. “The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase — but it is very misleading. The references to Roe in the bill are in non-binding, discursive clauses. The heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortion.” The bill flatly invalidates any “statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose” abortion, or that would “discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer’s words, “the absolute right to choose” prior to fetal “viability.” The no-restriction policy would also apply after “viability” to any abortion sought on grounds of “health.”

Duration : 0:3:1

[youtube AR1RD2-fabA]

New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion

admin — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:21:19 +0000

In The Know panelists say more states should make decorating a nursery and choosing a baby name required steps in obtaining access to an abortion.

Duration : 0:2:11

[youtube Zrm7W3zGSoA]

Suction & Curettage Abortion Illustrated / Vacuum Aspiration Abortions / Video

admin — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:13:03 +0000

Suction & Curettage Abortion of a 9 Week Fetus Illustrated. Credits at the end of the video. Images from Nucleus Communications, Inc. All text from Fair Use. Suction & Curettage Abortion of a 9 Week Fetus Illustrated. The Suction Aspiration abortion procedure, also known as Vacuum Aspiration, is the most commonly used between 7 and 15 weeks from the last period. A speculum is placed in the vagina, a tenaculum is clamped to the lip of the cervix and a cannula is inserted into the uterus. The amniotic fluid, placenta and fetus are suctioned through the cannula into a collection jar. The fetus and placenta are torn apart in the process. The uterine cavity is scraped with a curette to determine whether any significant amount of tissue remains. Blood, amniotic fluid, placental tissue and fetal parts are placed in a jar. The contents of the jar are then examined to assure that all fetal parts and an adequate amount of tissue commensurate with the estimated gestational age are present. What are the risks? Side effects are common and normal, and consist of abdominal cramping, pain, nausea, sweating, and feeling faint during the procedure, cramping and pain for 2 to 3 days following the procedure, as well as bleeding for up to 2 weeks. True complications occur in approximately 1 to 2% of vacuum aspirations. Allergic reactions to anesthesia or other medications given can occur. It is vitally important that you report any over-the-counter or prescription medications as well as illegal drugs so that the anesthetics can be adjusted accordingly. Bacterial infection can occur during the procedure when surgical tools enter the uterus, while symptoms won’t occur for 2 to 3 days after the procedure. This happens most frequently when there is an underlying STD that is not diagnosed at the time of the abortion. Therefore, it is vitally important that you be tested for STDs prior to the abortion. Infection is the most common post-abortion complication. Hematometra, that is, a uterine blood clot, can occur if the uterus does not contract to expel all of the lining. There will be severe abdominal cramping and nausea if this occurs. Heavy bleeding can occur if the uterus fails to contract and may lead to a uterine blood clot, as mentioned above. Heavy bleeding may require medication, a repeat abortion, surgery, and or transfusion. A cut or torn cervix can occur when the doctor dilates the cervix, grabs the cervix with the tenaculum, or inserts the cannula into the uterus. This may lead to a weakened cervix making carrying a future child to term difficult. The uterus may be perforated during the abortion when the doctor rubs the cannula against the walls of the uterus, causing heavy abdominal bleeding and or infection. You may require surgery to repair the puncture, and rarely you may need a hysterectomy to stop the bleeding. Scarring of the uterus may occur, resulting in “Asherman’s Syndrome.” This scarring can occur as the doctor rubs the cannula against the walls of the uterus and can cause future fertility problems. An incomplete abortion, where the pregnancy has been terminated but the baby or other tissue does not get expelled, can occur in an additional 1% of cases, especially those done before 6 weeks, causing severe cramping and excessive bleeding that continues for over a week following the abortion. Emotional or psychological distress can occur after the abortion, including depression, guilt, regret, anger, and/or sleep disturbance. Suction Aspiration abortion, also called Vacuum Aspiration, is the most common abortion procedure in practice today. For the procedure to begin, the woman’s cervix must be manually dilated with a series of rods to allow for the insertion of a hollow plastic tube with a sharp cutting-tip. This tube is connected to a suction machine that is able to pull the tiny embryo or fetus apart (killing him or her in the process). The remains are sucked out of the mother and deposited into a collection canister. The placenta must then be cut away from the inner wall of the woman’s uterus before it, too, can be sucked into a collection bottle. Suction Aspiration Abortions are not generally performed before the 7th week or after the 15th.
Following conception the fertilized egg implants into the uterine lining (endometrium). The Suction Aspiration uses a straw-like instrument (cannula) that is attached with tubing to a machine that provides light suction. The cannual is inserted through the cervical opening. A light suction that last 15 seconds to 2 minutes empties the lining of the uterus where the pregnancy is implanted.

Duration : 0:1:13

[youtube 9McAyyHC3sk]