headline reads , live baby killed for parts
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:31 pm
actually reads similar to link --- http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/19/live ... d-eyelids/ ---
Just some friends talking
http://txdigest.com/txdigest/
glenn/dallas wrote:I cannot bring myself to even read the articles about this horrible mess.
Castle Doctrine wrote:Again a totally false headline! Random chemo-electrical reaction will continue in the body after death. No one killed a live baby for parts.
Distasteful as this is by mislabeling it and playing for the shock effect you lose the impact of what it actually is and what it really says about abortion. The truth is just so much more compelling and the graphics here fit that much better than this bit of sensationalism. The woman obviously is not mentally tough enough for this sort of work. I know a number of people in health care with similar issues with other processes.
But, this was just another abortion and people who practice callous conduct in the workplace.
I think the story itself is a micro aggression and should have had a trigger warning. You can't just post offensive stuff like this anymore...ask your college age children about it. (Apologies for mixing threads).
Castle Doctrine wrote:Again a totally false headline! Random chemo-electrical reaction will continue in the body after death. No one killed a live baby for parts.
John in Plano wrote:Castle Doctrine wrote:Again a totally false headline! Random chemo-electrical reaction will continue in the body after death. No one killed a live baby for parts.
Distasteful as this is by mislabeling it and playing for the shock effect you lose the impact of what it actually is and what it really says about abortion. The truth is just so much more compelling and the graphics here fit that much better than this bit of sensationalism. The woman obviously is not mentally tough enough for this sort of work. I know a number of people in health care with similar issues with other processes.
But, this was just another abortion and people who practice callous conduct in the workplace.
I think the story itself is a micro aggression and should have had a trigger warning. You can't just post offensive stuff like this anymore...ask your college age children about it. (Apologies for mixing threads).
Someone killed a baby, parts were then harvested and sold.
Is that an acceptable headline?
or does it need to be
Fetus aborted , material sold
crackertoes wrote:Castle Doctrine wrote:Again a totally false headline! Random chemo-electrical reaction will continue in the body after death. No one killed a live baby for parts.
If they do not use digoxin prior to the procedure to kill the baby, then it is likely still alive when removed from the mother. We don't know the age of the baby when it was removed so it's very much possible the heartbeat was real and not a reaction.
And yes, this is what PP does... they kill babies for parts, for convenience, for whatever reason.
Well, the aborted fetus part is correct. Nothing was sold. The fetus was donated...not sold. It isn't an insignificant difference.
Killed a baby...nope...parts, harvested, sold are all inaccurate and inflammatory. Fetal tissue was donated by the woman and the clinic facilitated that donation. The clinic was reimbursed for its actual expenses for that facilitation. That won't get the auto-outrage going but is far closer to the reality of the situation.
The truth is bad enough. Why can't the Right just limit such crap to the truth. It might actually influence someone not to have an abortion. But, that isn't really the point is it?
You may be able to hear – and see – your baby's heart beat for the first time when you're about 8 weeks pregnant if you have an early ultrasound exam. (The baby's heart starts to beat at around 6 weeks.)
Otherwise, you'll probably hear first hear it with a fetal Doppler at a regular prenatal care visit. Your caregiver may be able to find it with the Doppler as early as 10 weeks.
Sangersteve wrote:Just a gental reminder, I own this site, I pay for this site, you are only here at my discretion. I have not banned anyone,yet.
You were not targeted in anyway except by inclusion as a democrat.