From a NYTimes article at:
Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "
But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.
"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now � I didn't plan to talk about this � right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."
The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.
What I want to know is, Edwards states that he is pro-abortion and hasn't fought partial birth abortion, so how can he stand there and say that this child (who hasn't been born yet) speaks through him, makes him feel her presence and basically acknowledges that this is a person with feelings, a heartbeat and a chance for life, and that this cruel doctor who didn't act fast enough to give her a "normal" rest of her life, is responsible to pay 6.5 million dollars? What if that same doctor had performed a partial birth abortion on this child? What if this same doctor had performed an abortion on this child when she was, say, a month or two earlier than the birth date? Am I to understand that Edwards stands for murder or brain damage as long as the mother consents, but will sue a doctor if the mother doesn't consent?
""And I have to tell you right now � I didn't plan to talk about this � right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you.""
Shades of "The Exorcist". I'd much rather have God talking to me through Bush than a pre-birth child talking to me through Edwards, but I'm weird like that.
ooooo. I hadn't thought of it like that. You may have given us a whole new line to run with Stillcenter. He keeps pounding that we think that God is talking through Bush so we must assume that he believes that babies can talk through Edwards...is that called "channeling"? No...no...that's dead people. But then, the pro-abortion crowd says that these aren't live human beings and if a human being isn't alive, then it is dead...yeah, Edwards believes in "channeling". Oh my gosh! He is part of the occult! :-)
Murder is a tough issue too, and yet, we as a people (atheist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) all recognize it as wrong. Abortion is not a religious issue. It isn't a Christian issue. It is a civilized society issue. And who WILL take care of the children? I know countless numbers of couples who would adopt a child in a heartbeat, but the system won't let them or makes it too expensive. It isn't about the people...it is about the system. And if you use the argument of who will take care of these children, I have to ask then, does it make it ok then, to kill the children who are dumped on a hospital or orphanage doorstep, because there is noone to take care of them? Children are children no matter how old and they have the right to a life just as anyone does. When we start playing God and deciding who lives and who dies based on our perception of their possible quality of life, then we are in desperate trouble. Tell Christopher Reed or Joni Erichson Tada that they need to die because they haven't the physical quality of life that you and I experience. Or tell the urchin in New Delhi that he needs to be killed because he is so poor that he doesn't know when he will eat next. The answer isn't to kill a life, but to have compassion for each and every human being. I was especially touched by a young woman who was raped and impregnated at a young age by her mother's boyfriend and who decided that she just couldn't kill the baby because it was a living human being. She had the child and had it placed in a couple's home, is allowed to see that child and have a relationship, is going to college and has a testimony for other rape victims that is incredible. She won 1st runner-up in a state scholarship competition and has college paid for. To me, there is always a solution when the truth and decency is honored.
"Abortion is not a religious issue. It isn't a Christian issue. It is a civilized society issue. And who WILL take care of the children?"
The anti-abortion movement in USA is virtually a Christian movement and not just an issue of moral complication. It is a question of all life being holy and from the very conceptual stage. To the point that some even argue against birth control as a pregnancy is a divine gift from God. So no, the argument that it's a global moral issue of the same proportion as we see it here in USA is wrong.
And as you say it, "when we start playing God".
Is there enough happy adopters out there ready to assume 100% of all possible abortions? And should we go so far to even make birth control illegal?
The solution to a ban like this is nothing more then a bandaid. There are some people out there willing to adopt and there's a happy rape victim out there. I don't want to be coy here but to say that some constitute all is not a very good remedy.
But solution is simple. Before we ban we educate. Most teen pregnancies are in poor areas that lack clear sexual education and information about birth control. We need to teach our youth that sex isn't all that it sounds like. Abstinence does not work.
It has been proven that education and preventive programs lessens unwanted teen pregnancies.
"The answer isn't to kill a life, but to have compassion for each and every human being."
Then we need to stop all wars and conflicts as well. Are you willing to convict any of our soldiers for killing a bystander by mistake?
Again, I don't want to engage in a post that will flame an issue as this one - just contributing with my opinion.
Maybe I am lazy for leaving it up to the pregnant person but if we're to ban abortions for the reason you put forth, there are a lot more consequences we have to deal with.
And we don't live in a ideal world as such.
Flowers are a bloomin' - but little or no canning until Labor Day weekend for me.
I think BOTH sides will get into negativism, more than done today even.
I like McCain - so what he does is looked at with a less jaded eye by default. I just expect shenanigans more that usual this year.
>>Is there enough happy adopters out there ready to assume 100% of all possible abortions? And should we go so far to even make birth control illegal?<<
Birth control is a "before the fact" issue. It has nothing to do with whether a life continues or not. That IS a religious issue. But Islamists sure don't promote abortion, nor Jews, nor Hindus, nor many atheists. So I have to ask again, if you contend that there aren't enough happy adopters out there, then shouldn't we be killing the children who aren't adoptable now? Shouldn't we be getting rid of the ones who are "unadoptable" because of age instead of killing those who ARE adoptable because they are babies? Shouldn't we be killing old people because they don't have family to take care of them and there aren't enough people out there to take on the job so they are in the state's hands? And shouldn't we be killing retarded people because they are a burden on society? No, this isn't a religious issue. This is simply an issue that is societal.