:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 ::

As the lawsuits against the PBA ban continue the newest, and most assinine argument is that parents want partial birth abortions so their children can have a "proper burial".

Having gone to funeral college and personally embalmed/prepaired bodies for burial, I can tell you that a baby that is delivered via c-section can have a "proper burial" in the event that his/her life can not be saved... and probably looks a lot better than a child who has had his brain sucked out turning his head into a deflated balloon.

Now, if we're talking about women who don't WANT their child to live, women who are NOT using PBA to "save their lives", then how many of them are actually holding funeral services for their aborted little ones?

"Grunebaum (a specialist in maternal fetal medicine at New
York Hospital) said the abortion procedure held the vast number of women who otherwise 'really, really, really wanted to have a baby.'"

This is what PBA supporters keep telling us, but where's the proof? Every single time we try to find out exactly what the scenario is with PBA cases the PBA supporters say it is a violation of privacy - even when the identifying information is completely removed! That being the case, wouldn't saying "Most women who abort via PBA really, really, really want babies," be a violation of privacy also? Either way the women are anonymous!

If the evidence actually supported the claims of the PBA advocates, you can bet they would be INSISTING that the records be reviewed. And they would demand to know the identities of the women to boot! (When you hit the hyperlink, scroll down to the "anonymity" section to see the ruling on this woman's privacy.)

Grunebaum also has this to say: "[Partial birth abortion] is the same as any baby dying. People want to hold the fetus."

Is this guy NUTS? How many women want to hold children whose brains they have just had sucked out? I would really like to know! It's just another attempt at normalizing the atrocious.

That being said, I actually do know one woman who had her daughter killed because she felt death was better for her child than trisomy 18. She dressed and held this baby, took pictures, and posted them proudly to her "pro-choice" website. So at least some moms are undaunted by the fact that they have destroyed their children. I'm not sure most mothers want to hold and photograph children they have killed.

Furthermore, I can tell you from personal experience, ABORTION IS NOT THE SAME AS "ANY BABY DYING".

I have had a baby die and I have aborted a baby in the second trimester due to maternal health reasons. In both cases the babies were EQUALLY wanted by me, but the miscarriage was pink bunny cake with marshmallows on top compared to the abortion. It just wasn't the same at all.

I'd wager that most miscarriages/stillbirths do not involve a violent death. In abortion, the baby dies violently at the hands of someone who is intentionally trying to kill him/her. A little bit of a difference.

Grunebaum is as looney as the article's abortionist who asserts that even if the PBA ban ever goes into effect he will still perform illegal PBA's regardless. Well isn't that interesting? A "pro-choicer" that supports illegal abortions... I'm sure women can trust him to be very "safety" conscious while he is breaking the law.

These appeals are pathetic. America has her head in the sand re: abortion, but even a large number of abortion-supporters don't support PBA.

Our country does not WANT PBA's, and I think these suits are not going to help PP, NAF, abortionists, etc. But I guess that as long as they keep crowing about the lack of a health exception (and the liberal media keeps printing it) they will still have a few American heads to snow in spite of the "pro-choice" American Medical Association's assertion that there is never ANY medical situation in which PBA is ever necessary. Abortion supporters know the truth about this, which is probably why they are slowly graduating to a new argument that, in stark contrast to their usual methodology, actually focuses on the aborted child's remains.

Groups like PP, NARAL, NOW, etc. take exception to people who cloud the abortion issue with facts. As is evidenced by the new argument, it's not the truth that counts; what really matters most is looking good.

:: ashli 7:18 AM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?