You can almost see a smile on the face of the damn-o-crats (sorry to get
political but this is obviously a partisan fight) when they say "Oh it's
unconstitutional because it (a ban on partial birth abortions) doesn't
protect the health of the mother." Nonsense. There is no way that pulling
a fully formed baby's head out of the mother and sucking the baby's brains
out is healthier for the mother than leaving the baby intact. You might be
able to argue that doing an emergency caesarean section and removing the
child completely would be healthier for the mother than leaving the baby
alone inside her, but to say that murdering the child halfway out just to
make sure it meets the legal definition of an abortion is healthy for a
woman is a lie from hell that not even these demon-possessed people can say
with a straight face.
As for the girl who wanted to keep her baby, Phil, as you said you tuned in
late. There might be circumstances you didn't hear. If the girl could have
kept the baby in the first place, what was the reason she was giving the
baby up? She might have physical, emotional or mental problems that the
family knows will make it impossible for her to raise a child to keep the
child safely. I agree that if at all possible the natural mother should
keep the baby, but there might be extenuating circumstances you didn't hear.
Glad to know there is someone else around who screams at the TV and radio
though. Grin.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Scovell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:09 PM
Subject: Doctor Laura and partial birth ban
> Occasionally, when I have nothing else to do and I am checking different
> talk shows, I listen to Doctor Laura. I agree with most all of her advice
> but about one out of ten times, I find something with which I disagree.
> Just prior to hearing Doctor Laura's advice to a 21 year old woman who
gave
> birth to a child and was giving it away, I heard Focus on the Family and
> Doctor James Dobson telling about how he was at the signing of the partial
> birth ban which the President signed into law this week. Switching from
> hearing the President talk about signing this bill into law and tuning in
> Doctor Laura was a strange event. This 21 year old college student called
> in and was crying. She had just given birth 8 days ago and prior to the
> birth, she and her family had talked it over and she was going to give her
> baby to her aunt and uncle to raise and to adopt. Now, after the birth,
she
> was having second thoughts and she desperately wanted to keep her baby.
To
> my amazement, Doctor Laura told her she had to stick to her decision and
> give the baby up. I wanted to scream into the radio, why? She wants to
> keep it now. She wants to raise him now. Instead, Doctor Laura advised
her
> to continue going to school and to give up the baby. Gretchen was 16 when
> she gave birth to Everett. She gave up school and everything else to be
his
> mother. What would be wrong with a 21 year old young lady giving up
school
> to raise her, note the word her, baby. She is the mother; not her aunt.
> Doctor Laura supposedly stands for morality and all that is right but she
> missed the boat on this one by a country mile. That young lady now wants
to
> raise her child and she is old enough to do so even without help but she
has
> a family who wants to help. She isn't 14 or 15 or 16 years old, she is a
> freaking 21 year old woman; a grown adult. She has the adult abilities to
> be a good mom and she wants to do that. Yet, Doctor Laura talked her out
of
> it. Somehow, something feels wrong about all this. I see that two judges
> have already ruled against the President's signing of the new law saying
he
> can't do that but in his speech, he vowed to fight it in the courts to
keep
> it law and to protect the unborn. Praise God for that.
>
> Phil.
|