Demonstration of Partial Birth Abortion / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video PSA
 |
||
 |
 |
|
 |
||
About Born Silent. In 2000 the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Nebraska's law banning the brutal act of late term abortions. This decision has paved the way for legal challenges to similar laws in 30 other states. Born Silent was launched as a grass roots effort to raise awareness of the issue in the weeks preceding 2000 Supreme Court case. Our goal was to develop a concise message that clearly reveals the issue without being offensive. The result was a one minute narrative video in the style of a public service announcement, the heart of this web site. Our message is just as relevant today as it was in 2000: "Your voice will make a difference!" Born Silent is a message, not an organization. Our related sites and take action pages contain links of organizations working to voice this issue in the hallways of Washington. We hope you take time to investigate these organizations, let them hear from you, contribute to them, and spread the word about this web site. If you represent a political action group we hope that you will be able to use this site as a tool, as a way of helping your constituents fully understand the issue. Link us from your site, let us add you to our list of related sites. Just drop us an email and let us know how we can help each other spread this message. http://www.bornsilent.com/abou... domain public service video. 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.
Channel: People & Blogs
Uploaded: December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm
Author: rosaryfilms
Length: 00:53
Rating: 3.94
Views: 19850
Tags: abortion abortions act anti anti-abortion ban barack birth clinton court development dilation evacuation extraction fetal fetus illegal late late-term legal legality obama partial partial-birth political politics pregnancy pregnant pro pro-choice pro-life procedure procedures prochoice prolife senate stage supreme term trimester
Video Comments
|
jmanthewoman (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Again I will say it one more time. It's really ignorant for someone to tell me that my argument is weak, or that I "fall for anything" or anything else along those lines. You have no idea who I am, and I'm not coming on here and bashing any of you. I never said that abortion was right either did I? you're so obsessed with arguing you're not even paying attention to what anyone is saying. We don't all have to agree but you can be respectful of what other people have to say. Or maybe you can't...
beemrmem3 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
So if I don't feel that murder is wrong then that should be ok by you and the law? I mean who are you to tell me whats right and wrong, right? So if someone came to your house and killed your family and felt there was nothing wrong with that you would disagree but not doing anything, because who are you to tell him whats right and wrong.. you arguement is weak
beemrmem3 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
So what if one your family members was in a coma and you knew they would be totally normal and aware in 3-4 months. Would it still be ok to pull the plug because they don't know its going to happen? Or you can pull the plug because youll have to take care of him for awhile after hes out of his coma, and it will be to much work. You could argue we are all just a group of cells like a cyst, weak arguement IMO.
balkanmix (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
stkieran , tumors arent just like a fetus , because if you let a tumor grow it will remain a tumor , but if you let a fetus grow it will become a person. like you. or a better one...
jmanthewoman (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
you know, that's so ignorant. i never pointed out what anyone said as being stupid, and i would definitely never make assumptions about a person because of one comment. and by the way, i think my comment makes it quite clear that i do stand for something, i stand for people making their own decisions and no matter how much i disagree NO ONE has the right to tell anyone what's right or wrong. these women aren't asking you for your opinion and neither is anyone else.
mandamk (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
the fact is, the more laws we have surrounding abortion, the easier it'll be to get rid of it. You can't just say "get rid of all abortion," because the pro-choice people aren't going to go for it. Laws like the one you mentioned, as well as things like abolishing partial-birth abortions, are good first steps.
2SpeakTruth (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
jmanthewoman,that's like saying "i'm against murdering the man on the street but if joe wants to kill him that's none of my business." way to be apathetic! if you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.
PrincessBecca04 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
1.) Most pro-life people would make exceptions for rape victims. Aside from that only about 1% of abortions are by rape victims, pregnancy from rape is rare and only 15% choose to abort anyway. 2.) You can use multiple methods to more effectively prevent pregnancy (the pill+condom, condom+foam, the pill+foam, etc.) Also 46% of women who abort weren't using any form. 3.) Condoms are not that expensive. Family planning (the pill) and condoms are also free for people w/o insurance in many states.
Indiapyro69 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
I feel happy that you feel strongly about this issue.I'm not her to argue,I feel that your message would be stronger coming from a woman.With the spokesperson being a man,a being who will never have to think about whether he should have an abortion or not,it doesn't present your case very well.If it was coming from a female,someone who may consider,I know you'd would never but hypothetically for the purpose of my argument,abortion,it would, i don't know,show a more realistic and personal side.
Stkieran (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
No, you don't know what it's like. You had no conscious awareness at that point. A foetus doesn't have the developed brain to realise "Oh, a vacuum is going to be stabbed in my skull and i will never be born. That sucks." A foetus is as much alive as a tumor. |