KFC’s buckets full of breast cancer
Friend Steve and others notified me last week that Kentucky Fried Chicken was launching a “national ‘Buckets for the Cure™’ campaign, aimed at educating more women and men about breast health, generating support for the cause and attempting to make the single largest donation in the history of Susan G. Komen for the Cure,” according to its press statement.
Steve emailed, “I love KFC, but I guess I can’t go during this time period.”
That’s because Komen gives grants to Planned Parenthood, which as we all know, causes breast cancer by aborting mothers and dispensing hormonal contraceptives. Komen officials say there are certain places in the US where only PP performs breast cancer screening….
While Komen turns a deaf ear toward our logic, maybe it won’t on an analogous mainstream complaint with its KFC campaign.
CNN reported yesterday:
Can chicken breasts help beat breast cancer? KFC officials are hoping customers will flock to help the chicken chain make a record-breaking donation of $8.5 million.
But some critics are calling foul on the company’s mixed message, especially in light of the recent, heavily publicized addition of the aggressively fat-and-sodium laden Double Down sandwich [pictured above] to their menu….
The… American Cancer Society’s website warns, “Being overweight or obese increases the risk of several cancers, including cancers of the breast (among women past menopause)…”
It is the bucket color that is troubling Barbara Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action, an organization that calls itself a watchdog group seeking to compel the changes to end breast cancer.
She tells CNN that her group believes the KFC campaign is based in “pinkwashing” – putting a pink, cancer-awareness ribbon on products that are bad for health….
“This will keep [Komen] in business for years. They talk about a cure, but this this partnership will create more breast cancer. And Komen knows this,” said Brenner on the assumed relationship between fast food, excess weight and cancer risk….
Komen’s director of communication, Andrea Rader, tells CNN the claims are “ludicrous.”
“These partnerships go a long way toward supporting education and direct care for over 1,900 communities across the country. These programs provide mammograms to women in low-income communities,” Rader said….
Well, there’s a familiar excuse.
I happen to agree Komen has no business partnering with KFC, whose food only increases the risk of breast cancer. Hopefully mainstream pressure on the more politically correct issue of diet will cause Komen to think twice about partnering with breast cancer enablers. Talk about ludicrous.
But another part of me is pretty sure Komen’s goals aren’t necessarily what it states.
[HT on CNN article: Alex R.]

Sometimes I get my coffee at Wawa. This time of year they have Komen Race for the Cure cup cozies.
Needless to say, I double-cup my coffee.
The first time I saw that “sandwich” in a commercial, it nearly made me queasy. Ugh.
Does anyone realize that even superseding not having an abortion, breastfeeding your baby is the way to breast health, including reducing your chance of cancer by 28% for a yr of breastfeeding? I wonder if KFC is installing places for women to breastfeed in their restaurants with all the money they’ll be raking in for breast cancer awareness.
I have been watching the commercials for this and I’m so glad that I don’t eat KFC!! I will be giving them a phone call to let them know that I will never eat there again [eh, I’ve stopped for a sandwhich now and again] b/c Komen gives money to support abortion which causes breast cancer!! I’ll honestly never eat there again!! I also dumped Nationwide car insurance after finding out that they give money to PP.
That’s because Komen gives grants to Planned Parenthood, which as we all know, causes breast cancer by aborting mothers and dispensing hormonal contraceptives.
Completely incorrect. This argument alone should discredit this site as a source of any accurate information whatsoever.
The ‘colonel’ and I parted company years ago.
I ‘eat mor chikin’ at Chick Fil A.
I love the ‘cows’ promoting a beef free diet.
I believe that PETA picketed KFC years ago. Apparently they were upset about the cruel way that chickens were killed. ….Save the animals, kill the children!! …Society is so sick and twisted!
Posted by: Dhalgren at April 29, 2010 5:40 PM
“Completely incorrect.”
—————————————————
Gangrene,
What is completely incorrect?
That Komen gives grants to PP
or
That there is link between elective abortions/increased hormone levels and breast cancer?
The first should be easily refuted if it’s not true or easliy corroborated if if is true.
The second is bit more difficult as there are studies that show elective abortion of first pregancies do put women at a greater risk for developing breast cancerand there are studies that are inconclusive.
What is not in doubt is that increased hormone levels increase growth of cancerous cells.
Studies have shown that pre-menopausal women who elect to have surgery to remove canerous growths have a better chance of non-recurrenc/survival when the surgery is done at the time of their monthly cycle when their hormone levels are lowest. (It’s been a while and I do not recall the increased level of which specific hormone is attributed with the increased cancer risk.
OK, somebody put up or shut up.
Provide the proof that Komen contributes to PP.
Gangrene, you provide Komen’s financial disclosure that proves Komen does not contribute to PP.
yor broken
A bit off-topic, but I found this absolutely hilarious and I think y’all might appreciate it.
You know the Oklahoma law that makes it illegal to collect damages in a “wrongful life” suit? The one that the governor vetoed and then the House voted in anyway? Guess how the other side is spinning it?
“Oklahoma state will protect doctors from lawsuits who outright lie to women about any of their unborn children’s birth defects, if only on a hunch that they’d consider aborting.”
I kid you not, I have copy-pasted those words exactly from another website I frequent that is, unfortunately, chock-full of pro-aborts (although that’s finally breaking up a little).
Since this claim was so outrageously unbelievable, I actually looked up the text of the bill in question () and read through the bill. It’s fairly short. My guess is these claims come from Section 1C, which states “In a wrongful life action or a wrongful birth action, no damages may be recovered for any condition that existed at the time of a child’s birth if the claim is that the defendant’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion.”
Which would seem like it could be construed as carte blanche to lie if you want, but for the next paragraph which states that doctor’s can be sued for acts or omissions that could be prevented, cured, or ameliorated prior to birth.
When I read this spin, I laughed and laughed and laughed. How much of an idiot do you have to be to believe this stuff?
Well. That post didn’t come out right at all.
The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph should read “acts or omissions that keep him/her from acting on a condition that could be prevented, cured, or ameliorated prior to birth.”
Blargh. Going to go practice my HTML skills now.
Here are a few articles relating to Komen + PP
http://www.frcblog.com/2008/05/susan-g-komen-foundation-has-ties-to-countrys-largest-abortion-provider-planned-parenthood/
http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/fact_sheet.pdf
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041002.html
First rule of statistics – correlation is not causation.
my parents got KFC last weekend, despite this. My dad had NO choice but to get a PINK bucket (it was the ONLY THING THEY HAD!). I had wanted POPEYES, but my brother’s kids (the older two anyway) don’t like Popeyes. :( I wish we had gotten Popeyes instead. In fact, it was for this very reason (the bucket) that I had NOT wanted KFC.
My sister’s family has had KFC ALL the time for birthday gatherings, but I called her and my mom had emailed her regarding this pink bucket thing. They will hopefully get the chicken elsewhere.
I will never eat KFC again if they make this a yearly thing, even though I like their potatoes and gravy (actually I really prefer Popeyes Cajun Gravy)
Yeah, as soon as I saw the commercial last week I emailed KFC and told them I was boycotting them till they stopped supporting SGK. No response. pooh.
For those in the Northeast, you will be familiar with WAWA. Best hoagies (they are NOT grinders and NOT subs)and coffee ever. A couple years ago they decided to donate to Planned Parenthood ever. That was painful for me to boycott them, but boycott I did and contacted their headquarters. Well, the pro-life boycott was so swift and so severe in less than a month they announced they would NOT be funding planned parenthood.
All that to say, we pro-lifers have just as many dollars as the pro-aborts. Its time to use that leverage. No more KFC till they do whats right and stop funding SGK. Which is a shame, I wish I could support SGK, I really do. But some people just can’t seem to stop funding baby killing.
Here is the link to KFC. Call them or email and let them know the don’t have your business. Who wants to buy a bucket of chicken and know that money will eventually funnel into Planned Parenthood’s coffers?
http://www.kfc.com/contact/
I did my PALS recert this week (Pediatric Advanced Life Support). The instructor for the class is an RN I worked with for a long time at the County hospital. She is brilliant, truly one of the most intelligent people I know. She has never said anything about abortion in my presence one way or another. In fact, thinking back, she has never discussed politics one way or the other, either. I have NO idea how she feels about either issue. I do know she’s an incredibly good nurse, however.
One of the issues she discussed was that we are now seeing much higher numbers of teenage girls with pulmonary embolisms due to increased use of birth control in that population. (I know, we’re discussing cancer, but I thought that was a really interesting statement for her to make.)
Back to cancer. Is the National Cancer Institute a good enough source? They state: “In a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Women diagnosed with breast cancer were asked whether they had used OCs for more than 6 months before diagnosis and, if so, whether the most recent use had been within 5 years, 5 to 10 years, or more than 10 years. The results indicated that the risk was highest for women who used OCs within 5 years prior to diagnosis, particularly in the younger group.”
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
American Cancer Society? “Researchers have confirmed earlier studies that women who use birth control pills have a higher risk of developing breast cancer. New study findings were reported in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (Vol.11: 1375-1381).”
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Study_Birth_Control_Pills_Increase_Breast_Cancer_Risk.asp
WebMD? “Scandinavian researchers have noted an increase in breast cancer in a group of women that were currently taking or had recently taken birth control pills. Longer use of the pill seemed to increase the risk.” and “A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that women with a strong family history of breast cancer may have up to an 11 times higher risk of breast cancer if they have ever taken the pill.”
http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/pill-breast-cancer-risk
Actually, I was a bit annoyed when I read the fine print about this particular promotion, which says that despite the fact that every ad I’ve seen so far gives the very clear impression that your purchase of a pink bucket equals KFC increasing their donation, it actually doesn’t. The money-per-bucket calculation is actually that KFC is donating a certain amount of money for every bucket that THEY buy (i.e. when they buy the supplies for their restaurants) — and that the donation will be “at least” $1,000,000. And that your purchase does absolutely nothing to change the amount of their donation.
I don’t share the opinion that you all have about the Susan G. Komen foundation, aside from a small amount of personal bitterness that comes from my experience as a cancer patient who found that there were all kinds of support groups and services set up to help women with breast cancer, but when a company gives a donation and then uses it to drum up more business by making people think their purchase actually makes a different, it bothers me. If you really want to support a cause, donate directly, don’t buy something you wouldn’t usually buy because the package says “if you buy me we’ll donate money”.
Which would seem like it could be construed as carte blanche to lie if you want, but for the next paragraph which states that doctor’s can be sued for acts or omissions that could be prevented, cured, or ameliorated prior to birth.
Oh, okay. They can lie, but only when there’s nothing that can be done before the baby is born to help them.
And it’s not just whether or not something could be done to help them — that “help” has to be something that “preserve[s] the health and life of the affected individual.”
So when the doctor sees that your child is going to be born with a horrific birth defect that causes them to live a unspeakably painful and awful few days or weeks hooked up to life support before they finally and exhaustedly die, and doesn’t say word one about it to the parents, who are robbed of the chance to decide if they would rather terminate the pregnancy and spare their child an experience I don’t think any of us can accurately imagine — well, in those cases, the doctors are protected. As long as there’s nothing that can be medically done that “preserves the life and health of the affected individual,” and what possible action could preserve the life of a baby with a condition or birth defect that will kill him/her within a few days or weeks?
So yeah, you’re correct, there are some exceptions to the bill, which will be a great comfort to parents as they spend sleepless nights watching their newborn suffer and die a slow, painful death that they had absolutely no chance to prepare for or make decisions about, knowing that when the huge hospital bills came that their insurance didn’t cover — if they have insurance at all — they can’t even sue the doctor who lied to them (and to conceal a major birth defect or problem right up until the birth of the child, the doctor would have to lie repeatedly).
Those silly liberals. Making a huge fuss over nothing.
Ack, editing FAIL. I left out a couple words in my comment about KFC — which should read: “…aside from a small amount of personal bitterness that comes from my experience as a cancer patient who found that there were all kinds of support groups and services set up to help women with breast cancer and then a couple of things that the rest of us who had less popular cancers could participate in.”
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 29, 2010 6:46 PM
“First rule of statistics – correlation is not causation.”
——————————————————
RINO
First rule of statistics, if there is NO correlation, there is no causation.
Second rule of statistics, if there is ‘correlation’, dig a little deeper, there may or may not be causation.
Found under rules for RINO’s.
Just because you are paranoid does NOT mean they are not out to get you.
yor bro ken
Excellent blog post!
http://voicesforlife.blogspot.com/2010/02/exposing-susan-g-komen-foundation.html?spref=fb
“who are robbed of the chance to decide if they would rather terminate the pregnancy and spare their child an experience I don’t think any of us can accurately imagine.”
Inducing labor early won’t save the child any pain. He will still die a painful death, but probably because of suffocation rather than the underlying disorder.
Not exactly merciful.
Inducing labor early won’t save the child any pain. He will still die a painful death, but probably because of suffocation rather than the underlying disorder.
Not all fatal birth defects and conditions can only be diagnosed in late pregnancy (where inducing labor early would be the method of termination). But even in those cases, a short but painful death (a matter of minutes) seems merciful compared to a long drawn out painful death that takes days or weeks.
I live with constant pain at a level that most people, thankfully, will never experience and can’t imagine, which is difficult to live with even though I fully understand where it comes from and why I am in pain. An infant experiencing this level of pain would have no way to understand why he was in pain or the reason for the medical interventions that were done, not even to understand that the pain from procedures was part of trying to help. I doubt that any of us can fully imagine or understand what that would be like.
And all of that aside, I can’t see any possible reason that justifies making a law allowing doctors to lie to parents that gives those parents absolutely no recourse, especially when the only exceptions are so vaguely worded and ill-defined. What constitutes treatments that “prevent, cure, or ameliorate” the “handicap, disease, or disability” of the child? If a child has a 100% chance of dying not long after birth, does ANY treatment meet that standard?
I was looking back over the law and another passage stuck out: “It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.”
Apparently, doctors telling parents the truth about fetal defects or conditions is a threat to the preservation of public peace, health, and safety. Everything else about this bill aside, I have a very hard time seeing how this last bit is justified. It seems like in order to pass a law that has immediate effect, an emergency has to be declared, which makes sense if you’re talking about, say, an actual emergency that requires a new law. Freeing doctors from the obligation to be truthful with their patients? Wow. If that’s an emergency, I’m really gonna have to revise my definition of the word.
Hi Violet,
I left you some comments on the Weekend Question What would you say to Sarah thread.
It looks like there should be a grassroots “sub” group to educate our American women on the truth of breat cancer and prevention. I would think…no matter what a woman’s economic status is that she would rather not get it at all, then catch it early. From what I keep reading (between the lines too) Komen is about finding a cure, and early detection, not prevention. The “PC” needs to stop – not enough exercise, being overweight (fat), not breastfeeding, not having your children, not having children early enough in your life, etc. – these are all things that the mainstream feminists, liberals (Komen included) do not want to address…why? Well, I think all of us here know.
“But even in those cases, a short but painful death (a matter of minutes) seems merciful compared to a long drawn out painful death that takes days or weeks. ”
Did you not read the post from two days ago about a baby born via induced abortion at 22 weeks who lived 2 days? I believe that the baby Jill witnessed die lived for almost a day.
They can help ease the pain of children who are born too soon or born with birth defects. The children left to die after abortion receive none of this care, unless you consider being wrapped in a sheet and placed in a soild utility room to be pain relief.
Did you not read the post from two days ago about a baby born via induced abortion at 22 weeks who lived 2 days?
I read the news stories about it before it was posted here. It’s a horrific story, and you won’t find anyone on the pro-choice side who thinks that these rare occurrences are acceptable.
That a few unscrupulous doctors and medical personnel think it’s acceptable to leave premature infants to die doesn’t change the fact that it’s the exception, and not the rule.
Violet, it’s not that the doctors are unscrupulous. They promised a dead baby, and by God, the woman is going to get a dead baby. That was Obama’s argument when he fought against giving these children legal protection, anyways.
The problem is that there is absolutely no way to know if a child will survive induced labor. Some kids are fighters, and giving them care “burdens the mother’s original decision to abort.”-Obama
It is an accepted part of the pro-abortion world. I’m glad to hear that you personally oppose this, but a quick google search will show you that there were many on the pro-choice side fighting aginst any laws to protect these children.
That was Obama’s argument when he fought against giving these children legal protection, anyways.
Obama fought against those bills because protection for infants born alive was already state law. Illinois state law protects all living children from birth and mandates their care, whether or not that birth was in the context of abortion. They already were protected; there was no legal exception that said, “but it’s okay to kill infants who are born alive during abortions.” Similar to some of the other state bills that we’ve seen recently that manufacture a nonexistent “emergency” in order to set the stage for challenges to Roe v Wade.
The CDC estimates that 500 babies every year are born alive after abortion. Yeah. Rare.
Here’s a video clip
http://www.onetruemedia.com/otm_site/view_shared?p=7030bd098cca768e72d111
“Obama fought against those bills because protection for infants born alive was already state law. Illinois state law protects all living children from birth and mandates their care, whether or not that birth was in the context of abortion. They already were protected.”
Wrong. From Jill’s post during the election: http://www.jillstanek.com/obama/did-il-abortion.html
“IL law has rules – loophole-ridden rules, but rules – requiring treatment of babies who have “sustainable survivability.” If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital “abortions” were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That’s why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.
National Right to Life adds:
Obama’s defenders… fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.”…
Moreover, as [liberal columnist] Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune notes (August 20, 2008), “Prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on ‘born alive’ definitions or other definitions.”
“Similar to some of the other state bills that we’ve seen recently that manufacture a nonexistent “emergency” in order to set the stage for challenges to Roe v Wade.”
Posted by: Violet at April 30, 2010 1:50 PM
I have to interject… what other state bills specifically?
For give me if this was already discussed, but the REAL “emergency” in the case of BAIPA is that a child born alive with only an abortionist in the room needs another experienced doctor who is trained in saving babies lives. The abortionist, quite often, has no experience in delivering healthy babies.
How does this not make sense to your pro-aborts?????
I have to interject… what other state bills specifically?
I was specifically referring to the bills passed I think last week in Oklahoma. The text of the bill the protects doctors who lie to patients about fetal problems includes this section:
It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
That’s what I’m talking about when I say “manufacturing a nonexistent emergency.” Pretty sure that particular bill is not what they had in mind when the state created a path to immediate law for emergency use.
How does this not make sense to your pro-aborts?????
It does make sense, to me anyway. Though it should be pointed out that an MD doctor who performs abortions of potentially viable fetuses is trained in lifesaving techniques and should have the knowledge and skills to care for born alive infants until they can be transferred to a NICU (which should be done right away). A doctor who can perform a complex late term abortion but doesn’t know what to do for a living baby shouldn’t be practicing at all.
The CDC estimates that 500 babies every year are born alive after abortion. Yeah. Rare.
500 out of an estimated 1.2 million abortions is still rare — 0.417% of all abortions if my math is correct.
Hmm, yeah. Even more rare than those rare rape cases pro-aborts like to tout ALLLL the time.
So… are we now allowed to say you don’t give a rat’s butt about those babies left to suffocate in soiled utility rooms, the way you say we don’t give a rat’s butt about women who are traumatized by rape? Even-stevens?
BTW, abortionists are PAID TO KILL CHILDREN. They’re not paid to save them. If a child is born alive during an abortion, enlighten me on what that’s called again? Oh, yes…
A *botched* abortion. An “incomplete” procedure.
But I get it, Violet. Abortionists should wear halos because they are saintly, self-sacrificing, helpers of women everywhere, who do God’s work every day. (You might as well say it, because that’s what quite a number of them think of themselves.)
Hmm, yeah. Even more rare than those rare rape cases pro-aborts like to tout ALLLL the time.
In 2007, there were 248,300 sexual assaults reported (and that doesn’t count the 60% of assaults that are not reported). How many victims get pregnant is estimated between 1-2% and 4.5% depending on the source. That translates into between 2483 and 11,174 pregnancies.
And yeah, we “tout” how rape and incest victims are treated under abortion laws, because these pregnancies happen at a rate of between 7 and 30 every day. Because these victims suffer terribly and restrictive abortion laws prolong and increase that suffering.
Like it or not there are some doctors who perform abortions that do sacrifice and work hard to help women. Have you ever read the stories from A Heartbreaking Choice (http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/personal.html)? These are stories submitted by families who chose abortion after they learned their child had severe and usually fatal birth defects. They are indeed heartbreaking, and they represent a number of doctors who are there to help these families — often when no one else will.
That is not to say that every doctor who does abortion procedures is a saint, because we know there have been some bad ones out there who did a great deal of harm. But there are some great ones, too, who give and work selflessly to ensure that women have access to what is still a legal medical procedure.
Violet, I am a rural mail carrier who just today delivered to every resident on my route the pepto bismal colored coupons for KFC. I, too happened to notice the disclaimer on the front of the booklet. It helped me to overcome my conscientious objection to delivering them. I feel the need to excessively wash my hands after handling anything with the SGK logo on it. They are supposed to be helping people, not helping to kill them.
I contacted KFC. Hope everyone does the same. Those letters do help.
“watching their newborn suffer and die a slow, painful death” Violet, what minute do newborns feel pain? The exact minute they pop out of Mom?
“That is not to say that every doctor who does abortion procedures is a saint, because we know there have been some bad ones out there who did a great deal of harm.” Also, thanks for the quote for my Quote of the Day notebook!
Violet: “That is not to say that every doctor who does abortion procedures is a saint, because we know there have been some bad ones out there who did a great deal of harm. But there are some great ones, too, who give and work selflessly to ensure that women have access to what is still a legal medical procedure.”
Every “doctor who does abortions” is not a real doctor. Doctors are supposed to heal the sick, not take the lives of innocent human beings.
And abortion is NOT legal.
Every “doctor who does abortions” is not a real doctor.
Well, except for that pesky medical license and all those years of training. And what about doctors who do medically necessary abortions? Are they “real doctors” because they do it to save the woman? What about doctors who do abortions in cases of severe fetal defects? Are they “real doctors”?
Doctors are supposed to heal the sick, not take the lives of innocent human beings.
Which leads me to ask if it’s okay if they take the lives of humans who aren’t innocent — does being “innocent” give a human being a greater right to life than the rest of us?
Violet, what minute do newborns feel pain? The exact minute they pop out of Mom?
I don’t know the answer to this question. From the little I do know, we’re far from a scientific consensus on the issue of fetal pain and at what point can fetuses feel pain. Your question would be better put to someone who studies fetal development.
Also, thanks for the quote for my Quote of the Day notebook!
Not sure why me saying there are bad doctors out there is cause for celebration. It’s a pretty well established fact — and there are bad doctors in every specialty, just as pretty much any profession you look at includes people who are great at what they do and people who suck at it. To insist that all doctors — or all doctors who perform abortions — are great at it would be ridiculous, not to mention easily disproved. But I’m glad you got some enjoyment out of it.
” A doctor who can perform a complex late term abortion but doesn’t know what to do for a living baby shouldn’t be practicing at all.”
Violet,
Thank you for your honesty!
Posted by: Violet at April 30, 2010 1:27 PM
“Did you not read the post from two days ago about a baby born via induced abortion at 22 weeks who lived 2 days?”
shirking violet: It’s a horrific story, and you won’t find anyone on the pro-choice side who thinks that these rare occurrences are acceptable.
—————————————————
shirking violet,
To quote the dearly departed former governor of Texas Ann ‘wrinkles’ Richards, when some naive foe was trying to pound sand up her b.o.!
“Don’t go peeing down my leg try to tell me its raining.!
There are plenty of people from the ‘dead babies r us’ lynch mob who post here on a regualar basis who believe it is a perfectly acceptable practise to terminate pregnancies when the prenatal human fetus is beyond the point of viability, and should the child survive the procedure, to abandon that premature infant to die, or to speed up the process by murdering the child.
In the waste not/want not category some of these same people believe it is irresponsible NOT to exploit the human remains of the now dead baby if for no other reason than to attempt to justify his/her murder.
Put down the obama crack pipe you have been smoking and step away from the cloud.
Then listen for the sound of the ‘pop’.
It may take a while before you hear it.
Your cranium is so firmly lodged where the sun does not shine it will take extraordinary force/power to extract it.
(Picture a brawny dentist wrenching on a particularly recalcitrant wisdom tooth and multiply that effort by factor of ten.)
The resulting ‘pop’ will be so loud you can not miss it.
The sudden and sharp report may startle animals and small children who are unfortunate to be in close proximity to the noisy event.
Of course there is nothing or no one but you to prevent you from re-inserting your canium should the light of truth be too much for your eyes to bare.
I apologize for the verbosity of my response.
If I were to allow myself to indulge in the profane and vulgar I could have summed up your willfully ignorant condition in less than ten words.
Unless of course you are NOT just ignorant, but dishonest to boot.
That would justify just a few more monosyllabic expletives.
“Put down the obama crack pipe you have been smoking and step away from the cloud”
Sorry Violet, I have just replaced your quote in my Quote of the Day notebook.
There are plenty of people from the ‘dead babies r us’ lynch mob who post here on a regualar basis who believe it is a perfectly acceptable practise to terminate pregnancies when the prenatal human fetus is beyond the point of viability
That may be, but I’m not one of them.
and should the child survive the procedure, to abandon that premature infant to die, or to speed up the process by murdering the child.
I’d love to see some specific examples of people who are pro-choice saying that infants who are born alive during an abortion should be abandoned or murdered. If there are “plenty of people” who believe that, it shouldn’t be hard.
In the waste not/want not category some of these same people believe it is irresponsible NOT to exploit the human remains of the now dead baby if for no other reason than to attempt to justify his/her murder.
Not sure what you’re referring to here — are you talking about using fetal tissue for research, or donating organs, or what?
And for the record, though given how much time I’ve spent posting here I think this shouldn’t need saying, what other people or groups say about abortion issues does not represent what I believe or how I feel. The only person who speaks for me is ME. If you want to know what I think about something, please just ask me instead of assuming you know what I think because some pro-choice person somewhere said something.
But what should our laws be regarding abortion,Violet? What you believe? What the proabort down the street believes? What B.O. believes? Proaborts beliefs are all over the place.
How about what prolifers believe? That human life begins at conception and no one has a right to ever kill this human life. Or is this too simple?
Violet,
Why do you support abortion? Do you believe it is the taking of innocent human life?
Also,
http://www.benotafraid.net
An amazing compilation of stories of families with many fetal deformities, some fatal and the courage and bravery it took them to allow their child to live until they died naturally. NOT kill them before they died!
Violet,
Given Lauren’s comments earlier, can you still defend Obama’s opposition to BAIPA?
Shirking violet,
My goodness.
You are dishonest to boot.
My bad.
It was irresonsible of me to even give you the benefit of the doubt.
As a wise man once said, “It is a waste of time to flap your lips (flitter your fingers) at a fool.”
I will leave to bask in the nonexistent rays of your own intellect.
yor bro ken,
I noticed the lie right away as well. Thanks for the reminder that I need to use my time a bit wiser sometimes.
Peace.
Posted by: Violet at April 30, 2010 5:33 PM
“If you want to know what I think about something, please just ask me instead of assuming you know what I think because some pro-choice person somewhere said something.”
————————————————-
vilest,
Even if we asked you and you provided an answer, we could never be sure what you really meant us to believe.
Should we believe you or what our ‘lyin eyes’ have seen in your posts?
There have been enough of the ‘physical autonomy’ dead babies r us lynch mob posting here to put the lie to your assertion that no advocate of elective abortion on demand condones, excuses, encourages, killing viable pre-natal human embryo/fetuses.
Your soul mate ‘gangrene’ posts repeatedly that these prenatal children are not human unless they are birthed the old fashion way with labor and blood, sweat and tears.
If their mother wants them dead, gangrene, says she is entitled to a lifless corpse.
If they arrive alive as the result of an unsuccessful attempt on their life while still en utero, then they are not human, not persons, not worthy of health care except a plastic bag tied tightly around their necks to hasten their deaths.
vilest,
It is people like you and ‘gangrene’ who give the ‘dead babies r us’ crowd a bad reputation.
If you need any more unbiased proof then go hang out with the feministas and feminazis at feministing.com instead of loitering around here.
They are as chauvenistic, biased and bigoted as any white supremicist I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. [I believe I would have more success persuading, convincing, reasoning those red neck hayseeds that non-causcasians are just as human as they are.]
Cut and paste their ‘phyiscal autonomy’ tautologies and save them to refresh your convienent memory when you are confronted with realities you do not want to accept.
I agree with the EMT poster above who asks why Planned Parenthood’s OTHER really profitable enterprise – steroid sales – never usually makes it onto the list of why nobody should support Komen. It’s really like the elephant sitting on the coffee table. Planned parenthood, and thus Komen by funding them, CREATE and CAUSE breast cancer in multiple ways.
http://www.uvalies.org//breastcancer
So do just about every university student health care center in the country. Meanwhile, we’ve gone from the disease affecting one in 25 women to one in 8.