killing disabled newborns is acceptable

The blood of millions of lives is on everyone that votes for a pro-choice candidate.

 

True!

So true!

 

I have no idea what your response was about.

I believe that keeping someone alive in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) just to keep them alive is at best weird. Do you prefer medical terminology that much? I personally think that keeping someone alive in PVS is wrong. A century ago, they would have died - NATURALLY. 98% of the people in the world today, would die NATURALLY.

If you got a problem with letting people in PVS die - you have an opportunity to make an historic change . . .

good luck

 

\

But I guess it's OK to twist her words as long as it shows how evil the Democrats are! Keep up the Lord's work Reverend!

 

That's when a parent (or person) sues a doctor.

Usually the parent, because a doctor "missed" diagnosing a child with a defect.

Here's an example.

Janet and Jim are expecting a baby. An ultrasound is done, and everything appears normal.
Baby Jeff is born and has Down's syndrome.
Janet and Jim are upset. If the doctor had told them the baby had Down's syndrome, they would have aborted.
But he didn't.

So now they sue the doctor to get the money for their distress, for the Baby Jeff's medical expenses, and for the entire cost of raising him.

Another example.

Joe has a vasectomy. It doesn't work and his wife, Marcia, gets pregnant. They don't believe in abortion.
So they file a wrongful birth lawsuit and sue the doctor.

It goes on.

A disabled child may choose to sue the parents for not aborting him/her. This is another form of wrongful life lawsuit. They are upset that they are disabled, and believe the parents should have aborted them.

Both parent and child may sue for damages if the pregnancy was caused using a "defective embryo".

So not only does a doctor have to fear if a disabled child is born, but the parents who don't abort get to worry that their child will grow up and sue them for being born.

It's a scary and sad thing. How awful would it be to grow up and know that your parents would have aborted you if they had known you didn't measure up to their wants?

 

Reverend,

I appreciate your stand against the evil of abortion.

Wayne

 

It's not necessary to show that the democrats are evil.
It's not necessary to show that the republicans are evil.

But it is necessary to show that abortion is evil. If we don't stand against baby killing, then we will be held accountable.

I refuse to vote for anyone that does not see abortion as evil,
for the same reason Piper does... Here is his article on abortion:

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society​

Pondering One-Issue Politics and Cruelty To Animals
Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter?

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office-on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor-that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.

It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.

So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him-except that child-killing is more serious than those.
When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, "No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal." Subdivision 7 says, "No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal." The penalty: "A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that "no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law." Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to "maim, mutilate and kill" a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?

These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil-even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.
* * * This article is from A Godward Life, Book I: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life by John Piper (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 1997), pp. 279-280. Used with permission.

 

One issue that most American soldiers that have died protecting freedom were against.

But, some people want us to support a life killing politician because they are 'good' people.

:thumbs:

 

There's nothing in that sentence that says that before you bring your baby home it's not part of your family. It was redundant of her to mention bringing it home, after birth, but it is ridiculous to suggest that she thinks it's OK to kill a baby before you bring it home.

I am quite certain it is your dishonesty that is what bothers me. But thank you for your concern.

 

She is for killing the unborn

. . . and she is unwilling to take a stance against partial birth abortion

. . . stop the killing of innocents . . . abort the politicians . . . vote out the wrong.

 

People in what is called PVS (I was just making a point it is not really a medical term because doctors do not really know what is going on with a person in this state) are not dying. So the issue is not letting them die. I worked in a pro-life organization for 2 yrs. and my boss was the specialist in euthansia issues. He was also qualified to argue before the Supreme Court and had done so, so he's probably one of the top legal persons in this area. I learned a lot there on this issue.

In order for someone in a PVS to die, one has to actively kill them by withdrawing nutrition. They then starve to death. Would you be willing to do this to someone? That is the issue. If you did this, you would be actively killing them.

 

That is so wrong on so many levels.

IMHO - Keeping someone alive, when a century ago they would have died, just to please you is wrong.

 

murdering babies is wrong . . .

 

Remove your terrible personal motive . . .

Mine are just as heartbreaking . . . but, rather than appealing to emotions . . .

It is wrong to make someone live in a vegatative state just so you can go see them. If you want them that way, I won't go there, but if they choose to be let go - let God take them home.