Comments on: The Human Life Amendment Redux http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/ Progressive approaches to science policy Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:45:30 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Paul http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-4624 Paul Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:26:23 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/#comment-4624 Read this: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf That's REAL science. Abortion is incubating a living nightmare worse than any ever experienced in sleep or in the movie theatre. Read this:

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

That’s REAL science.

Abortion is incubating a living nightmare worse than any ever experienced in sleep or in the movie theatre.

]]> By: Robert Snyder http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-942 Robert Snyder Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:52:34 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/#comment-942 I really appreciate all the negative comments about the Human Life Ammendment. It goes to show the total absence of facts that Pro Abortionist try to hide behind ... like comparing it to giving rights to a kidney or liver, or saying its between a Doctor and a woman. Two patients enter the abortionist's clinic and only one gets out alive. Doctors have successfully performed surgery on babies in the womb. Everything is genetically present at conception. The only difference between us and the child is nutrition and time. We` are not talking about the sad fact of miscarriages. We are talking about so called professionals legallly dismembering and extracting children in the womb. This is just getting started. They haven't even mentioned the myth of the coat hangar researched at http://www.lifeissues.org/brochures/hangar.html I am glad that pro-abortionist feel obligated to defend thier views because it is indefensible and sincere readers can see through the smoke screens that we are talking about a baby. I really appreciate all the negative comments about the Human Life Ammendment. It goes to show the total absence of facts that Pro Abortionist try to hide behind … like comparing it to giving rights to a kidney or liver, or saying its between a Doctor and a woman. Two patients enter the abortionist’s clinic and only one gets out alive. Doctors have successfully performed surgery on babies in the womb. Everything is genetically present at conception. The only difference between us and the child is nutrition and time. We` are not talking about the sad fact of miscarriages. We are talking about so called professionals legallly dismembering and extracting children in the womb. This is just getting started. They haven’t even mentioned the myth of the coat hangar researched at http://www.lifeissues.org/brochures/hangar.html I am glad that pro-abortionist feel obligated to defend thier views because it is indefensible and sincere readers can see through the smoke screens that we are talking about a baby.

]]> By: margaret harnish md http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-639 margaret harnish md Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:42:22 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/#comment-639 40-80% of these zygotes a.k.a. "persons" are spontaneously passed in the monthly menstrual flow. Obviously the Colorado Supreme Court never consulted with medical experts, otherwise if this ref. passes, in order to avoid prosecution to illegal disposal of human remains, sexually active women in Colorado will have to pay for proper disposal of their soiled tampons and sanitary pads. As an ObGyn I am beyond furious with the ignorance of this state. I am not strongly anti or pro abortion: I deal constantly with the terrible pain women suffer at the hands of these stupid ideologues as well as the emotional stress women experience when trying to figure out what is moral. The implications of this ref. are an insult to women. 40-80% of these zygotes a.k.a. “persons” are spontaneously passed in the monthly menstrual flow. Obviously the Colorado Supreme Court never consulted with medical experts, otherwise if this ref. passes, in order to avoid prosecution to illegal disposal of human remains, sexually active women in Colorado will have to pay for proper disposal of their soiled tampons and sanitary pads. As an ObGyn I am beyond furious with the ignorance of this state.
I am not strongly anti or pro abortion: I deal constantly with the terrible pain women suffer at the hands of these stupid ideologues as well as the emotional stress women experience when trying to figure out what is moral. The implications of this ref. are an insult to women.

]]> By: Yankee http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-493 Yankee Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:25:00 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/#comment-493 Frank Lacey, What the real question is, does your wife who carries the 5 or 6 embryos get to cast that many votes? If they cared so much about these children's lives why shouldn't they all get to vote once conceived, why wait until they're 18? Give them full rights! If you want to know what happened to the scientists look at the Kentucky legislature who held hearings on global warming, and forgot to invite scientists claiming that this is just Kentucky and no scientists could be found. http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/231346.html Frank Lacey,

What the real question is, does your wife who carries the 5 or 6 embryos get to cast that many votes? If they cared so much about these children’s lives why shouldn’t they all get to vote once conceived, why wait until they’re 18? Give them full rights!

If you want to know what happened to the scientists look at the Kentucky legislature who held hearings on global warming, and forgot to invite scientists claiming that this is just Kentucky and no scientists could be found. http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/231346.html

]]> By: Frank Lacey http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-485 Frank Lacey Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:44:40 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/the-human-life-amendment-redux/#comment-485 hmmm...if my wife takes fertility medication during a cross-country trip and winds up with 5 or 6 embryos, which state gets to claim the population increase--the conception state, the carrying state, the birth state, or the final residence state? On a more serious note, where are the doctors and scientists in this debate? Why are we not seeing more outspoken, rational, unified criticism of this proposal? This is similar to the question of why junk climate science has, until more recently, been getting "balanced" coverage in the media, isn't it? hmmm…if my wife takes fertility medication during a cross-country trip and winds up with 5 or 6 embryos, which state gets to claim the population increase–the conception state, the carrying state, the birth state, or the final residence state?

On a more serious note, where are the doctors and scientists in this debate? Why are we not seeing more outspoken, rational, unified criticism of this proposal? This is similar to the question of why junk climate science has, until more recently, been getting “balanced” coverage in the media, isn’t it?

]]>