All those opposed to abortion, raise your right hand!
Several
years ago, little Samuel needed surgery for spina bifida.
There was one slight complication: he hadn't been born yet. Not
to fear. Though only 21 weeks old – an age when one-third of his
peers are being killed by safe, legal abortion – doctors performed
in utero surgery that saved his young life.
USA Today photographer, Michael Clancy, was in the operating room. As the surgeon was treating his young patient, Samuel reached out of the womb and grabbed the doctor's finger.
Click here to read the full story of this amazing photo.
If you want to find out whether the surgery was successful, you'll have to click here.
Thats great, I never knew before this blog.
Reply to this
I was a candidate for this with my first child. I wasn't even thinking about abortion, and the connection didn't even dawn on me. I just thought saving the life of your child - whatever you had to do - was normal.
Reply to this
Please don't allow this lie to spread. The fetus did not reach out of the womb; both he and the woman were anesthetized. Neither could have intentionally moved.
"[J]ust as surgeon Dr. Joseph Bruner was closing the incision in Julie Armas' uterus, Samuel's thumbnail-sized hand flopped out. Bruner lifted it gently and tucked it back in.
...
"The baby did not reach out," Bruner says. "The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on.""
http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp
Lies are bad. I hope you posted this because you were ignorant to the truth, not because you knew the truth and decided to be deceitful.
Reply to this
I actually had a long conversation with the formerly "prochoice" photographer who took the picture. Whether it was a deliberate action of the baby (to stick his hand out of the womb) or some reflexive movement on the baby's part is irrelevant. Even someone such as yourself can clearly see a baby's hand. That you would kill Samuel anyway betrays your pseudo-worship of truth and your embrace of the biggest lie of this generation.
You are correct: "Lies are bad" The point of the post is to illuminate the falsity of the "it's just a mass of cells" crowd. Since we're exposing lies as bad, your email address ("prochoice Christian") is at best oxymoronic and self-deceptive. So is your undoubted membership of a "left-wing think tank."
MRH
Reply to this
Why do you assume that I personally am okay with abortion at the gestation Samuel was at? You know what they say about assuming.
I commented on one specific point- the fact that you have either intentionally or unintentionally helped with the spread of a lie. You think it is irrelevant if you spread this lie- I think it's extremely important.
Why should anyone believe you if you cannot be truthful?
Reply to this
Your "point" is a red herring. I spoke at length with the photographer who took the picture. He described what he saw. I wrote it down. I put it in my blog.
That the doc had another perspective on the same event is not surprising. It's also irrelevant to my point - and it is my blog after all.
That point is to demonstrate the truth that the unborn child - regardless of his gestational age - is, try and stay with me now - a child. That child should be protected by the law just as you and I are to be.
The truth will remain the truth even should you choose not to believe it. A lie will remain a lie even if you insist on believing it.
MRH
Reply to this
So you really had no purpose for posting that picture, or posting the comment that Samuel "reached out of the womb." There was no purpose that you posted this? It has nothing to do with your point?
It'd be kind of silly for a writer to include something which had nothing to do with his point.
Speak with the photographer if you wish. I'll stick to science and logic, which says someone/thing anesthetized cannot "reach out of the womb."
I think it's interesting that you accidentally wrote "I lie" instead of "A lie." Freudian slip?
Reply to this
The purpose of the picture is to show the duplicity (if not the insanity) of holocaust deniers. It is clearly a human hand. So where is your "science and logic?"
You assert that the picture doesn't make my point.
I assert that you clearly have.
Reply to this