The most vulnerable among us. All these hapless little lives. Poison being injected into their unsuspecting bodies. The bodies are then incinerated in ovens, often hundreds of bodies at a time. California: Pathology waste: medical wastes which are either recognizable anatomical parts, or which are human tissue specimens containing residual fixative. Pathology waste must be treated by incineration. See Sections 118220 and 118222 of the Medical Waste Management Act. Florida: Fetal remains shall be disposed of in a sanitary and appropriate manner and in accordance with standard health practices and Chapters 381 and 390, F.S., and 64E-16, F.A.C. 59A-9.030 (The cited 64E-16 F.A.C. states, under .007: Biomedical waste shall be treated by steam, incineration, or an alternative process approved by the department as described in Section 64E-16.007(4), F.A.C., prior to disposal. Treatment shall occur within 30 days of collection from the generator.) Wisconsin: Human tissue shall be treated by any of the following methods: 1. Methods which render the tissue non-infectious and unrecognizable as human tissue. 2. Incineration where the tissue is transformed into an ash, which would not be recognized as being from a human being. N.R. 526.11 (2) (a) Warning, more graphic picture in the link here.
If you think there are too many abortions, the logical solution is to support policies proven to reduce the abortion rate.
Fetocaust? I can't stop laughing. I am starting to think you're a troll who just parodies pro-"lifers" to make them look bad.
You'll have to do better. Laws don't reduce the abortion rate. Contraception does. http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/20...d-the-medical-evidence-and-why-its-important/ A 2009 study looked at whether viewing an ultrasound image pre-abortion was something women wanted and whether it had an impact on her choice to have the procedure or her emotional experience(1). When given the option, almost 73% of women chose to view their ultrasound image and of those who did, 85% felt it was a positive experience. Not one woman changed her mind about having the abortion after viewing the image. .... We know that cost and laws do not affect the abortion rate. We also know that long acting reversible contraception lowers the abortion rate. There are some excellent studies that tell us that when women get depo-provera or an IUD post-abortion they are far less likely to have a subsequent unplanned pregnancy. But interestingly, many in the anti-choice movement also discourage birth control. If they were really pro-life (i.e. wanting to prevent every abortion possible) they would be handing out contraceptives instead of picketing clinics and clamoring for laws that restrict tobacco, as cigarettes are responsible for the deaths of 5-7% of all premature babies and cause 23-31% of SIDS). Laws that increase barriers to abortion create hardships for the women seeking the procedure but they do nothing to lower the abortion rate. To focus on abortion restrictions and not contraception is the height of hypocrisy and a waste of taxpayer dollars,
Honestly this made me laugh my ass off. I don't even know where to begin. Where do you people get this nonsense? lol Fetocaust, ridiculous.
Says the guy who wants to kill any newborn that doesn't meet his expectations, what do you think they are going to do with the approx 220,000 downs syndrome babies born each year Anders, after you have killed them.
Says the guy who would have no problem with late-term abortions being legal. You had told me that you only support banning elective late-term abortions just to compromise with pro-lifers.
Both you and Anders are guilty of having immoral beliefs and trying to justify your stances by pointing out the moral flaws of the opposite side's beliefs.
Anders, how about millions at a time?? Fetocaust??? Is the OP satire??? Really not a satirical subject
immoral by whose standards, yours, the church, god .. and what gives you the right to try and impose your morals onto others? - - - Updated - - - Probably because of the content .. or the bill hasn't been paid
Every law, by definition, imposes morality. Wanting to ban late-term abortions is imposing morals? LOL! I am such a horrible person. I am so horrible that I believe that women should not have the legal right to kill fetuses which are totally capable of surviving outside of the mother's body.
Sam, no one is suggesting that your are a horrible person for your beliefs. However, I wish the same were true of you and others like you
do they, how about tax laws, or jay walking, or smoking in a bar, or abortion. Of course it is, you yourself said that abortion is immoral, therefore you want to change it to become more moral based on your moral viewpoint, and please stop with the hyperbole .. I've asked you before and I'll keep asking, how many ELECTIVE late-term abortions are there, and please provide your evidence that shows the number of ELECTIVE late-term abortions. You keep harping on about " the legal right to kill fetuses which are totally capable of surviving outside of the mother's body" without giving ANY sort of evidence to support this wild accusation. I want to see the evidence you base this assumption upon please, otherwise I will just discount it as irrelevant.
nope, not a single state allows elective late-term abortions, all place restrictions. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf - Page 3
If late-term fetuses aren't persons, then why restrict late-term abortions? Then why restrict a "woman's choice"? you pro choicers are very hypocritical and self contradictory.
Late term abortions are for medical reasons. Women don't carry a pregnancy for months and then decide to terminate except in extreme cases.
