Wait... don't tell me... he was tired from all the charity work he was doing.... or was it hookers

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/24/d...n-ban-hearing/



Washington, DC (LiveActionNews) — Yesterday, Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) held a hearing on H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, originally for D.C. but now intended for the entire nation.

On the “pro” side of the congressional divide were Reps. Franks, King (R-Iowa), Chabot (R-Ohio), and Gohmert (R-Tex.); the “anti” side comprised Reps. Nadler (D-NY), sporting a suspiciously large soft drink, and Joh Conyers (D-Mich.), who divided his time among forgetting the number of the bill he had presented himself to oppose (H.R. 1793?), plugging ObamaCare, and sleeping.

Four witnesses testified – three for the bill, one against. The three in favor – Dr. Anthony Levatino, a reformed abortionist; Dr. Maureen Condic, a neurobiologist; and Jill Stanek, a nurse – presented unimpeachable testimony as to the “universal agreement” (per Condic) that a pre-born child does indeed feel pain at 20 weeks. Their testimonies are worth examining in detail, but I want to focus on the fourth witness: Ms. Christy Zink, a mother who aborted one of her three children.

Zink testified that she had received in 2009 “terrible news” about her son, at that point twenty-one weeks along – that he was, “in effect[,] missing one side of his brain,” and that he would live a life of “near-constant pain” should he be born. Zink followed her doctor’s advice and ended the boy’s life in utero. She said her abortion was “made out of love,” “to spare my son’s pain and suffering,” and that she was testifying “on his behalf.” H.R. 1797 is “downright cruel,” Zink said, because it would “inflict pain” on everyone who is not the pre-born child in question.

Now, Ms. Zink is characteristic of the sort of witness pro-abortion politicians like Reps. Nadler and Conyers like to bring to these hearings. She is not a doctor, let alone an abortion doctor, like Anthony Levatino, who can describe exactly what happens to the child during an abortion because he’s performed over 1,200 of them. She is not a neurobiologist, like Maureen Condin, who can lay out the parts of the human brain that respond to pain and explain how even “congenitally decorticate” children – i.e., children missing up to 80% of their brains – nevertheless respond to pain stimuli. (The specific young girl Condic mentioned, who was notably allowed to be born, also likes to dance to rock music.) She is not a registered nurse, like Jill Stanek, who cradled born-alive infants rather than leave them to die per her hospital’s orders.

Considering the overwhelming relevant expertise of these witnesses, one has to ask: why on Earth would Conyers and Nadler see fit to have Zink testify alongside them?

The answer, in short, is because she is political gold. Though not an expert in the relevant subject matter, she is a mother of three (two still living) with a sad story. Pro-aborts like Nadler and Conyers play emotional chicken using a woman like Ms. Zink: her story is the currency with which they gamble, and they dare Rep. Franks and the others to question it.

Often, people in Franks’s position under these circumstances blink; it’s hard not to. But not this time.

People from both sides of the room told their own stories; Levatino mentioned his daughter, the loss of whom convinced him to abandon committing abortions. Rep. Franks spoke of his brother, who lived a full life of forty years with Down syndrome. And Rep. Gohmert described his daughter, born premature, struggling to see and to breathe, on the verge of death. He quoted the NICU doctor: “It is so important that the baby hear your voice. Please talk to your baby, and caress her. Talk to her. Her eyes don’t work real well; she won’t recognize you. But she will know your voice, because she’s heard you in utero.”

“Ms. Zink,” Gohmert concluded, “having my great sympathy and empathy both, I still come back wondering: shouldn’t we wait, and see if the child can survive, before we decide to rip him apart?”

Pro-aborts like NARAL and Planned Parenthood will likely shriek that it’s cruel to call Zink’s testimony into question. But by treating Ms. Zink as a witness at a hearing instead of a pathetic pity-case, Franks, Gohmert, and the rest gave her the highest possible respect. That’s what she was there for – and Nadler and Conyers knew it going in.

Conyers, in a rare moment of wakefulness, declared Ms. Zink’s story “uncomfortable.” (He said no such thing in response to Stanek’s story, or that of Levatino, whom he called “Dr. Levantano.”) Rep. Gohmert, getting back on topic, asked Levatino how Conyers’s discomfort might compare to that of the child torn apart in the womb. Conyers desperately tried to sidetrack Levatino with a digression on ObamaCare – “Let me put it this way: can you just say you don’t like it?” Levatino, getting back on topic, bluntly demanded the relevance of the question. (Answer: thirty seconds of stuttering.)

The Republican representatives who matched Ms. Zink’s heartfelt pro-abortion story with their own pro-life ones were not cruel. The expert witnesses who used scientific evidence and medical experience to dismiss Ms. Zink’s personal testimony as irrelevant were not cruel.

Well, the good ole rat wangers weren't asleep. Nope, they were too busy taking away females' ability to decide what they would like to do with their own bodies to catch a nap. Hope your Teawipe Sugar Daddies, the Cock Broz, are getting their money's worth out of those guys.

Abortion Dr's 1
Caring mother 10

Now, Ms. Zink is characteristic of the sort of witness pro-abortion politicians like Reps. Nadler and Conyers like to bring to these hearings. She is not a doctor, let alone an abortion doctor, like Anthony Levatino, who can describe exactly what happens to the child during an abortion because he’s performed over 1,200 of them. She is not a neurobiologist, like Maureen Condin, who can lay out the parts of the human brain that respond to pain and explain how even “congenitally decorticate” children – i.e., children missing up to 80% of their brains – nevertheless respond to pain stimuli. (The specific young girl Condic mentioned, who was notably allowed to be born, also likes to dance to rock music.) She is not a registered nurse, like Jill Stanek, who cradled born-alive infants rather than leave them to die per her hospital’s orders.

Considering the overwhelming relevant expertise of these witnesses, one has to ask: why on Earth would Conyers and Nadler see fit to have Zink testify alongside them? Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Kayla, I happen to be very much anti-abortion, but you trivialize the reality of the argument with posts like this.

I am very sorry, but neither doctors nor biologists nor nurses are the real experts in family suffering. The family members are.

There were some posts about Alzhiemers on a different thread today. The doctors and other practitioners have to see and deal with the clinical aspects of that wretched disease an hour at a time. The families and the patients--constantly. I have heard a doctor tell my mother that she shouldn't be upset that her husbamd of almost 50 years didn't know who she was. Don't begin to tell me that the doctor is the expert on emotional pain.

I've seen a family at church who has two children with severe mental and emotional problems. The experts said the parents should institutionalize them, but instead the wife quit her job and cares for them constantly. The loss of her income resulted in them losing their home and moving into a 2 bedroom appartment where the wheelchairs, etc., make it near impossible to walk from one end of the house to the other. The parents are in their late 50s, the two children are both in their 30s. The doctors see them every month or so--the parents see the pain and drool and watch the "children" flail at themselves and anyone within reach every day for 30 years. That's over a quarter million hours in a row.

Again, I am against abortion. As with almost all hard problems there is no "good" answer, and certainly no simple one. To pretend there is is an insult to thousands of very anquished family members who feel helpless because they see every option as a bad option.

Well, the good ole rat wangers weren't asleep. Nope, they were too busy taking away females' ability to decide what they would like to do with their own bodies to catch a nap. Hope your Teawipe Sugar Daddies, the Cock Broz, are getting their money's worth out of those guys. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Just to prove I am an equal opportunity basher, your comments are at least as myopic as Kayla's, probably more so. Kayla assumes preventing the infant's immediate pain is of a higher good than the family & infant's later pain; it is at least a valid consideration.

You seem to believe there is only one body/life involved and a person can do whatever they want and their right to ease and comfort stomps anyone else's. That is boardering on evil in my mind. You have brought nothing to the thread except making it a political statement of Dem vs Rep, and if the Dems started being anti-abortion you would probably flip sides in an instant. Whatever disagreements I have with Kayla on her post, I don't think she would flip if tomorrow the Reps were pro-abortion. Do you have REAL principles on anything? You are just a reflection of DizzyBoy and Gonad. Equally rancid, just a different strain of bacteria.

do you have an opinion on this, Slunt, or are you just cutting and pasting?

Just to prove I am an equal opportunity basher, your comments are at least as myopic as Kayla's, probably more so. Kayla assumes preventing the infant's immediate pain is of a higher good than the family & infant's later pain; it is at least a valid consideration.

You seem to believe there is only one body/life involved and a person can do whatever they want and their right to ease and comfort stomps anyone else's. That is boardering on evil in my mind. You have brought nothing to the thread except making it a political statement of Dem vs Rep, and if the Dems started being anti-abortion you would probably flip sides in an instant. Whatever disagreements I have with Kayla on her post, I don't think she would flip if tomorrow the Reps were pro-abortion. Do you have REAL principles on anything? You are just a reflection of DizzyBoy and Gonad. Equally rancid, just a different strain of bacteria. Originally Posted by Old-T

Nice try, but wrong again! There are two arguments to this problem. First, there's is the religious/moral one and then there is the legal/political one. The religious/moral one dictates, generally, that personal choice is secondary to the accumulated history and inertia of whatever religious/moral code is in effect - end of discussion. The legal/political one is centered on personal choice. The framework is simple but everything else that follows isn't.

My rancid little point is that the rat wangers are really good at succinct, shallow bumper sticker framings of complicated things. While comforting to those who can't be troubled to think but prefer to retreat into simple little homilies, this trick is but a trick. Anyone can find someone to be a "witness" to anything. Great theater, only.

As far as my being a Democrat or what conditions that is based upon, you have no clue. Let's just say that I don't fit the profile of my demographic.

Let's just say that I don't fit the profile of my demographic. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Try a salad every now and then. And work out a little. That should help.