Your Dr Dobson wishes for women having a legal medical procedure to have their uterus perforated, so the doctor will be sued and then refuse to do necessary abortions in the future, all to achieve the goal of forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term.

Who cares if the fetus has died, or is microcephalic, or will cause the death of the mother being born? Dr Dobson — and you — have an agenda to stick to.

Mind your own business.

To quote the great Gloria Steinam:

If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

http://www.focusaction.org/Articles/A000000246.cfm

… appears that what he is referring to here is the killing of babies by injecting poison into their hearts. I’m not sure which is worse, collapsing the head of a viable baby and extracting his brains, or injecting a lethal dose into the baby’s body. How could so many Americans have come to this point of utter brutality and callousness? They came to accept it eventually because of powerful propaganda that paved the way.

In the aftermath of Roe v. Wade on January 20, 1973, radical feminists and other pro-abortion advocates told preposterous lies to get Americans to embrace the decision. They and the liberal media claimed that a “fetus” (never a baby) is simply “a blob of tissue” or “meaningless protoplasm.” They insisted that legalized abortion would signal an end to child abuse because “every child would be a wanted child.” In fact, it was only the beginning of the horror. Gradually, people became desensitized to the increased brutality of killing human babies.

Now, because of the development of ultrasound technology, those lies are exposed. A new mother can vividly see that she is carrying a precious baby. She can understand for the first time that the “blob of cells” has a heart that beats, and little fingernails on the hands. The child sucks his or her thumb and “swims” and cavorts in the amniotic fluid. Other characteristics of humanness are right there to delight his or her mother. That understanding is slowly turning the tide against legalized abortion.

This is why Focus on the Family is investing millions of dollars to provide ultrasound technology and related assistance for medical pregnancy resource centers. I’m pleased to tell you that this project has saved an estimated 42,000 babies in the past three years — babies who are alive and loved today. The best part is hearing from mothers who say, “I almost killed my child. But you helped me do the right thing. Thank you!”

Cultural attitudes are indeed changing. In August of last year, the Pew Foundation conducted a poll revealing that 73 percent of Americans view abortion as “morally wrong” in nearly all or some circumstances.3 Clearly, ultrasound technology is having a dramatic impact on hearts and minds. According to monthly reports from the pregnancy centers that participate in Focus on the Family’s Option Ultrasoundâ„¢ Program, 88 percent of abortion-minded women who receive loving counseling and are allowed to meet their babies face to face through the wonder of ultrasound declare that their hearts have been changed, that they are going to carry their babies to term.4 This, I believe, is one reason why the majority of Supreme Court Justices, including the liberal Anthony Kennedy, voted to outlaw partial-birth abortion.
…

Dr. Dobson puts a huge amount of energy into making the USA a nation worth perserving.

but, it will probably take many deaths and disablements
to allow doctors to do what they are supposed to do…

Thanks for the clarification, Katy. It was the term “anti-choice” that confused me. I was ambiguous about your position.

I agree–let’s hope they realize the error of their extreme views.

Ah, semantics.

Regards.

Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

Spoken like a true yellow elephant keyboard warrior.
Screw the issues – I have you on semantics.

Idjit.

Evangelical policy in a nutshell.

Regards.

Comment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 4:08 pm

No need to guess, I am pro choice (that is, if I were involved with politics, you know… like voting and stuff).

Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:58 pm

I see nothing wrong with IVF, either (and I never mentioned eugenics). But the spare blastocysts are either frozen and ultimately incinerated. That which we call a rose by any other name is still abortion. So I guess you’re pro choice. We are in agreement. Choice is good. Excellent!

Regards.

Comment by JosephW — June 4, 2007 @ 3:56 pm

ummm… you know I’m not really the president, right?

But still, how does my argument here relate to Iraq?

No need to embarrass yourself any more than necessary, so think before you respond.

Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — June 4, 2007 @ 3:54 pm

I take it you saw the other thread?

Why is semantics when TP says anti-choice, and it isn’t semantics when righties say pro-life? Isn’t it the same tactic?

Comment by Crump’s Brother — June 4, 2007 @ 3:46 pm

No, because the righties chose “pro-life” (from what I understand).
However, it is the same if a prolifer were to call a prochoicer “pro-death”.

Regards.

Comment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 3:33 pm

I see nothing wrong with that procedure, as long as eugenics are not involved.

Yet, you seem to have no concern for the Semantics of yourself and your fellow wingnuts. Hypocrite.

Tell me, have you ALWAYS been for RAPISTS RIGHTS? You know, rape a woman, and she’s “required” to have your baby because abortion is illegal?

Tell me, have you ALWAYS been for PEDOPHILE RIGHTS? You know, where a pedophile can molest an underage girl, and get her pregnant and you then require her to have his baby?

Tell me, have you ALWAYS been for INCEST RIGHTS? You know, where a relative can molest a child/young woman, and get her pregnant and you then require her to have his baby?

I didn’t know you were such a proponent of perversion – wingnut! Maybe that explains why you’re such a whiny little b!tch, that’s prone to using St*pid semantics?

Idiot.

To “Mr President”: Your opinion and concerns would hold a touch more validity if you hadn’t been so busy bombing the crap out of innocent Iraqis during the “shock & awe” phase of your war. Talk about someone being “pro-death”–only a RepubliCON could talk out of both sides of his mouth and actually believe he says what he means. The simple fact IS that when someone OPPOSES a woman’s CHOICE, then (get ready for a bit of logic) that makes the person ANTI-CHOICE; believe it or not, “anti” means “opposes”–so you’ll better grasp the use, think of the term “Anti-Christ” and what it means. The PRO-CHOICE movement believes that a woman can CHOOSE to carry the child to term or have an abortion; it’s HER choice (and, under ideal circumstances, a choice made by consulting her doctor and the fetus’ father and her family). The so-called “pro-life” movement is OPPOSED to her having a choice other than giving birth (and then, the “pro-life” movement completely loses interest as far as that BABY is concerned–time to move on to the next fetus).

And “pro-life” isn’t loaded? BAHAHA, st*pid little b!tch!!!

It was a strategic move on the part of the PRO-DEATH crowd; instead of addressing moral issues it tries to score points with words… pathetic. Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:13 pm

Exactly what I’m referring to. Nothing “loaded” about PRO-DEATH. I say what I always say to you – wingnut – PROJECT MUCH?

So tell me, wingnut. When you prevent a woman from having an abortion, who’s baby if “born” will likely kill her, while assuredly being dead at birth. How again are you “pro-life?

Hypocrite.

talk about “abuse of semantics”…
…