Anti-Abortion ? Read this

[persistence07]

alright, I think i've gotten bd figured out.


bd is the alter ego of tom, while tom is on lsd. They just argue with each other during bad trips, and then he posts this lunacy for our enjoyment.

[Don]

Originally Posted by persistence07

alright, I think i've gotten bd figured out.


bd is the alter ego of tom, while tom is on lsd. They just argue with each other during bad trips, and then he posts this lunacy for our enjoyment.

Occam's Razor!

[TexicanKid]

Originally Posted by bd

How can so-called conservatives be anti-abortion and claim to value the sanctity of human life when they endorse testing of pesticides on pregnant women, infants and children?

***********



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press contact: 202-289-2405
If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at nrdcinfo@nrdc.org or see our contact page.

NEW EPA RULE TURNS PEOPLE INTO LAB RATS, VIOLATING ETHICAL STANDARDS AND THE LAW

Statement by NRDC Attorney Erik D. Olson on Leaked Copy of Final Rule


WASHINGTON (January 23, 2006) -- More humans are about to become lab rats for the pesticide industry, according to a leaked copy of a rule due to be finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency later this week. The document was released by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) earlier today.

In addition to a profound moral and ethical breach, the final rule also violates a law passed by Congress last August requiring EPA to issue strict rules for such tests, and ban all pesticide tests on pregnant women, infants and children, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. That law passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support, which included conservative Republicans, who questioned the ethics of testing toxic chemicals on humans.

EPA expects there to be more than 30 of these tests per year -- far more than ever before.

Below is a statement by Erik D. Olson, an NRDC senior attorney:

"EPA is giving its official blessing for pesticide companies to use pregnant women, infants and children as lab rats in flagrant violation of a new federal law cracking down on this repugnant practice. There is simply no legal or moral justification for the agency to allow human testing of dangerous chemicals. None."

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

***********


Don't abort that baby----we need a lab rat.

HYPOCRITES of the highest levels - every one of you who support this immoral adminstration.


The so called conservatives want to do what's right until it gets between them and a dollar.

How can you sleep at night?

And don't start telling me what Bill Clinton did.

This is sick.


bd

I don't think anyone on this board every heard of this issue (just my guess). And people are not lab animals to be used for pesticide testing. ("Dr. Brown, the pregnant lady in Cage 13 is ready for a double dose of X-10 pesticide. Yes, try a lethal dose this time; she seemed to survive the last one.")

Naw, instead of asking why anti-abortion folks are pro-pesticide treatment on people (which is absurd), maybe the question ought to be turned towards the pro-choice crowd: why many are for the option of abortion (i.e., killing kin out of convenience), but against armed self-defense (i.e., killing a criminal out of necessity and survival).

Now, I've played my hand as an anti-abortion person (used to be pro-choice), but I will say that abortion is a self-punishing crime that attacks the conscience in later years, and need not be punished by law, necessarily. Just my two cents.

[Gator]

I will say that abortion is a self-punishing crime that attacks the conscience in later years, and need not be punished by law, necessarily. Just my two cents.[/quote]


+1

[telestai777]

OMG. You mean CONSERVATIVES are forcing pregnant women to be lab rat again. Silly conservatives. Wont they ever learn? Look this is the most rediculous article I have ever seen. I'm sure us conservatives have some evil plan to stop people from aborting babies so we can fuel our plans for haliburton can make the most powerful pesticide that doubles as a chemical weapon. Yea, I'm sure they are sitting around planning all of this. ARGHH WERE EVIL!

[Yuppicide]

.........A little off the subject, BUT maybe we could offer FREE abortions to illegal aliens!!!




BTW: Some conservatives believe birth control is also an abortion, and if they could outlaw a womens right to chose how long till they start banning condoms, etc. ?

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by Yuppicide

BTW: Some conservatives believe birth control is also an abortion, and if they could outlaw a womens right to chose how long till they start banning condoms, etc. ?

The only birth control that is widely regarded in conservative circles as an abortifact (that I know of, anyway) is the "morning-after pill", because in some circumstances it could lead to a fertilized egg being unable to attach to the uterine wall and develop into a child, thus the abortion.

The catholic church is against most forms of birth control for their own reasons, but they're not considered abortives because no conception takes place. No embryo, no abortion.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

The only birth control that is widely regarded in conservative circles as an abortifact (that I know of, anyway) is the "morning-after pill", because in some circumstances it could lead to a fertilized egg being unable to attach to the uterine wall and develop into a child, thus the abortion.

The catholic church is against most forms of birth control for their own reasons, but they're not considered abortives because no conception takes place. No embryo, no abortion.

That is correct. There is also a pill known as the "abortion pill". This pill takes the morning-after pill a step further. It can be used several days, perhaps weeks, after conception. It is called RU-486, I believe.

Frank

[Yuppicide]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

The only birth control that is widely regarded in conservative circles as an abortifact (that I know of, anyway) is the "morning-after pill", because in some circumstances it could lead to a fertilized egg being unable to attach to the uterine wall and develop into a child, thus the abortion.

But if it dosn't attach itself and develop into a child, how could it be considered an abortion? When a woman has her period, or is already pregnant, she gets a mucus (yuck) that keeps eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. Isn't that pretty much the same?

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by Yuppicide

But if it dosn't attach itself and develop into a child, how could it be considered an abortion? When a woman has her period, or is already pregnant, she gets a mucus (yuck) that keeps eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. Isn't that pretty much the same?

Most pro-lifers (myself included) believe that at the moment of conception, the fertilized egg is a new human life. By not allowing it to attach itself to further develop and be born, it's no different than performing an abortion later in gestation.

It's all about intent: if a woman is already pregnant, she shouldn't ovulate again until the child is born (as I understand it), but even if she somehow did and became "re-pregnant" while gestating the original child, it would be considered a miscarriage rather than an abortion because there was no intent to harm the embryo, and she may not have even been aware of what happened.