http://chicksontheright.com/posts/i...s-mom-to-explain-this-lawsuit-to-her-daughter According to this, a chick in Ohio by the name of Ariel Knight is suing an abortion clinic in Ohio for being completely incompetent and failing to successfully murder her daughter. Apparently, Ariel wanted the abortion because she has some sort of uterine disorder where she has a double uterus with two cervices, and was told by a doctor that her pregnancy and her life could be in danger if she carried to term. This, despite already being the mom of a pre-school aged son. About a week after her abortion, she found out she was still pregnant. She went to another clinic for abortion #2, but that clinic turned her down because they didn't want to get mixed up in what was already a botched abortion attempt. So then, she "she spent the rest of her pregnancy in a state of constant fear." “I can’t explain how I felt," she said. "It was just a sense of being overwhelmed, wondering what happened to the baby, wondering what’s happening to me and what did (the clinic) think they did." It's not clear from the sourcelink if she actually sought pre-natal care, which I would think would have, you know, stopped her from having to worry about what was happening to her and what was happening to the baby, seeing as how she would have been FOLLOWED BY A DOCTOR who could have TOLD her. In the end, she had a healthy baby girl, who she calls her "miracle baby" and says she "does not like to think about what would have happened had the abortion been successful." So in order to avoid thinking about the abortion, she's suing the abortion clinic for not killing her daughter. Makes sense. Now, granted, if the clinic was supposed to kill her daughter by abortion, and failed to do so, then it seems kinda silly that their attorneys are DENYING that they were unsuccessful. I mean, the fact that Ariel gave birth would tend to kinda negate the fact that they performed the abortion correctly. But this whole thing is completely absurd primarily because at some point, Ariel is going to have to explain to her daughter why she sued the clinic for failing to kill her properly. And I kinda want to be a fly on the wall when that conversation takes place.
Murder, Killing, etc. I see, you are one of those guys thinking abortion = killing. I'm not even gonna be bothered arguing with you, just want to point out a fact that flies don't speak English, so it's pointless being a fly when said conversation happens .... unless you love to be swatted.
I'm no expert on uterine disorders, but is it not possible that the condition could've developed or gotten worse since having her first child? I can understand disagreeing with lots of reasons why people get abortions, but calling someone a murderer because they are recommended to do so because of a life-threatening condition is pretty sick. But on the other hand, it is hard to argue with such a reputable source as the "chicks on the right" blog.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/piVnArp9ZE0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I have read three news stories on this and can't find where an abortion was recommended. She makes it sound like it was her decision. Haven't seen any particular info about this genetic disorder and the possibility of it being a worsening condition. Seems like a money grab. Ironically, if her life truly was in danger, I am obliged to defend her right to her decision even if I don't like it! The trouble is that it is just so easy to exaggerate these things.
Thankfully they didn't kill the little girl. History will not look back kindly on the abortion era...
I came here to say giddy had the best thread title ever, but now it pales in comparison, or shrinks in fear from the thadeus gas.
Not sure of the legitimacy of this blog. I'd feel a lot better about it if you told me you got this through one of your trusted Facebook sources.
Try Google. Plenty of stories there. What's wrong with the blog summation. Oh, that's right... pro-Life women don't exist so it must be fiction!
There is no debate. Giddyup found a nice anecdotal story that is supposed to mean something to the larger issue of abortion. Giddyup, props for not calling her a wetback.
The seamy side of abortion. My intro to this story came via this blog. I Snoped it-- nothing. I Googled it- multiiple news-style reports. Now I could have posted to simple news reports but I thought the angle of "what are you going to say to your little girl one day" was a fascinating one and hits upon the true horror that is abortion.
The people who keep telling us that the unborn child is just a clump of cells. What is unpleasant about that? I dump some every time I cut my nails or my hair....
So saying that a blastula is a clump of cells (the definition of a blastula) is the same as saying abortion is pleasant? I think your not-so-well hidden motives with this thread is becoming clear.
"Pleasant" is the word you introduced. I had said "true horror" and "seamy." Seamy refers to the side not seen. My motive with regards to this subject is always clear and out there front and center. So is yours....
