(Prolifer)ations 12-20-11
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- John Smeaton reports on hideous UK legislation which suggests the “solution” for pregnant women diagnosed with HIV/AIDS is to kill, rather than treat, their preborn children.
- Timmerie’s Blog notes that the world’s largest distributor of poinsettias, Paul Ecke Ranch of San Diego, is a large supporter of Planned Parenthood. Timmerie suggests you check the tag to avoid indirectly supporting PP.
- Wesley J. Smith decries a San Francisco Chronicle article which hypes hope in embryonic stem cell research despite evidence to the contrary, ignoring the success of adult stem cell research. Smith states the general public is generally uninformed on the issue, which does a disservice to suffering people and their families.
- Secular Pro-Life has a guest post which points out some inconsistencies in pro-choice mantras. One abortion apologist mourned the fact that some women, due to natural disaster, might have missed their abortion appointments, claiming, “My heart breaks for any woman who… will now have to carry to term.”
This doesn’t line up with the usual fearmongering about women resorting to “coat hanger” abortions if they can’t get them elsewhere.
- Pro-Life Wisconsin details a committee hearing for the WI bill banning telemed abortions.
- Suzy B reports that another pro-life state – this time, Texas – has been trampled by the Obama administration. In this case, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services denied funds due to the state’s defunding of abortion providers.
- ProLifeNZ describes the function of the perinatal hospice movement, stating that while abortion is touted as the best way to deal with a terminal prenatal diagnosis, “… there is no scientific evidence to support the presumption that terminating such a pregnancy is easier on the mother psychologically.”
- ProWomanProLife is happy with a balanced National Post article about Canadian abortion protestor Linda Gibbons (pictured right), who has spent nearly 8 years in jail for violating bubble zone laws. The piece notes the tolerance of the Occupy Toronto protestors’ civil disobedience, contrasting this with the difference in treatment of pro-lifers.
- Moral Outcry reflects on the national publicity generated by their story on the Komen Breast Cancer Awareness Bible, produced by B&H Publishing, which is now being removed from bookseller shelves:
This press emergence has done many things. The first and most important thing is that it’s made this little-known fact of the Komen-Planned Parenthood ties a nationally known one. That’s huge because really there is no reason for Komen to give its money to abortion providers, no matter what it says the money is to be used for, when there are so many health clinics and other systems that could use that money and also provide mammograms without taking life in the next room.
Additionally, Komen continues to ignore the research that shows a link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. So having this in the national news is a positive thing because it takes this out of the recesses of the back rooms and sets it on a national stage so everyone can examine it.
- The Passionate Pro-Lifer is not impressed with Planned Parenthood’s newest outreach to our children: distributing sexual health advice via text message. PPL asks:
A number of questions come to mind…. Will [they] know the age of the child that is seeking [their] sexual advice? [Are they] familiar with the physical, emotional and spiritual risks associated with sexual activity in young teens and even middle school children? Or will [they] be… abortion and sexual activity recruiter[s]?”
[Image via blogs.christianpost.com; Gibbons photo via saynsumthn.wordpress.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Perhaps anti-abortion laws should also outlaw wire coat hangers. A plastic or wooden coat hanger probably can’t be used to abort. What’s more, clothes do better when on plastic or wooden rather than wire hangers. This is why Joan Crawford became so famously abusive to adopted daughter Christina when the child put an expensive dress on a wire hanger. Perhaps more people need to adopt Mommie Dearest’s mantra: “No wire hangers!”
“Komen continues to ignore the research that shows a link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk” – it’s not ‘research’ of any acceptable independent scientific standard.
“spiritual risks” – what ‘spiritual’ risks?
rEALITY–you would actually have to be spiritual to understand what happens to a woman’s heart when she kills her own child to please herself.
Did you actually read the context Courtnay?
Reality, 58 out of 67 (I think it’s 67, it’s in the mid 60s I know) studies looking at abortion and breast cancer since the 50’s have shown an increase in breast cancer due to abortion. This has been found in studies from the US to Russia to Australia. That’s more weight of studies than showing the effecacy of the flu vaccine!
The primary increase in risk factor is simple, it delays child birth, which has a profound effect on a woman’s breast cancer risk. The biggest thing a woman can do to lowe her risk of breast cancer is have a full term pregnancy as young as possible. The risk goes up if you haven’t had one by 20, and it goes up sharply at 25, and it continues to climb every year thereafter, with another big spike around 30. Aborting a first time pregnancy by definition delays the first term pregnancy. Even *if* you dismiss the repeated finding of worldwide studies showing a link between induced abortion and breast cancer, it’s accepted scientific fact even in PC America that the longer you delay a pregnancy the higher your risk of breast cancer, therefore anyone with even a shred of intellectual intergity knows, even if they refuse to admit it, aborting a mom who has not yet had a successful pregnancy *increases her breast cancer risk*
Jespren I have looked deeply into this topic.
The ‘number’ of studies does not indicate accuracy. The age of a vast number of ‘pro-cancer-causing’ ones even less so.
All recent and current studies from independent sources in numerous countries do not find a causal link between abortion and breast cancer.
Any recent ones which do indicate the possibility of a link have been found to be spurious due to the biases of the authors or their sources.
There has been no emprirical study into the impacts of various lifestyle choices apart from abortion which could provide cause for increased breast cancer rates.
“the longer you delay a pregnancy the higher your risk of breast cancer, therefore anyone with even a shred of intellectual (intergity) knows, even if they refuse to admit it, (aborting a mom) who has not yet had a successful pregnancy *increases her breast cancer risk*” – wow, what a stretch. And the more miles we drive the more risk we face of being involved in a traffic accident – so stop driving.
Reality, there is no such thing as an ‘independant source’. Humans require a bias to think, it’s a requirement of rational though. Numerical data, as long as collected correctly, is somewhat independant of the inital bias. Now, people can manipulate data, they can hide or cover up or not report data. But which studies you choose to believe their source as accurate and their source as ‘bias’ is dependant upon *your* bias, and only occassionally has anything to do with the inherient bias or improper collection of the study itself. I’ve read refutations of many of the tiny % of studies that didn’t show a link, and they are all methologically flawed in both my perspective and the perspective of many brilliant and professional scientists. I likewise believe that you truly believe there are flaws to the studies that show a link. That is why I stated the number. If X+Z=Y enough times from enough different sources, individual bias becomes less and less likely. There is a joking math statement “2+2 can equal 3, but only for very small values of ‘2’”. Sure, a few studies have show X+Y?Z, but it sure seems like they need to really wrench it around to get there from here (here being reality where 2+2=4).
As for more driving=more prone to accidents. Sure, or course. The difference being that the automobile lobby is running around screaming that such isn’t true as they try to sell you a car. Nor are they calling those who point out it might not be the safest life choice to spend 24/7 on the road crack-pot anti-automobilists who just want to scare drivers.
“Humans require a bias to think, it’s a requirement of rational thought.” – oh really?
That’s a lot of irrelevant rambling to say that we both think our positions are correct when maybe they are and maybe they aren’t. The fact remains that studies alleging a causal link between abortion and breast cancer are outdated and/or repudiated by independent scientific studies.
“If X+Z=Y enough times from enough different sources, individual bias becomes less and less likely” – not when it comes to anti-choice rhetoric and misinformation.
Reality, yes, logic requires a starting bias, even if it’s as simple as ‘logic exists’ or ‘i can trust my senses’. It’s not only a well known concept, it’s considered a requirement of the rules of logic. Ask a logician if you can’t see the obviousness of the statement.
Btw, there was a study published *this year* from a non pro-life source that found a link between abortion and breast cancer. Very recent in fact, just got the update on it a few days ago. If you think all links are just outdated studies from pro-life sources, it’s because you’re either woefully ignorant of the full scope of such studies or you hope whoever you are dealing with is.
Choice comes before action. I’m all for choice, choice is good. I never think a woman should be forced to participate in a procreative act against her will, nor should a man. Rape is a horrible, horrible thing, and one of the reasons why is because it takes away such an intrinsic and important choice. What I’m against is someone, once having made the choice to participate in a procreative act, to try to avoid the consquences of that choice by killing a 3rd party. By the time a women needs an abortion she is ALREADY PREGNANT. If she wasn’t “with child”, she wouldn’t need an abortion. I’ve yet to meet a single person who thought women (or men) should be forced to be parents, but once they *are* parents, allowing them to kill their children should *not* be an acceptable way to get out of a choice they ALREADY made. Action happens after choice. Abortion is an action that happens after the choice to procreate has already taken place. I’m not anti-choice, I’m pro-choice, and pro-taking responsibility for your choice. But wait, I, and everyone else I’m familiar with on the REAL pro-choice side, feel it’s permissible, once feasible, to give up that responsibility and pass it on to another (adoption).
If you get an unspayed cat, and decide not to spay it because it’s an indoor only cat and you don’t think the likelihood of it getting pregnant is worth the cost of spaying it, that is your choice. If it then slips out of the house for a few hours and you end up with a surprise batch of kittens sometime later, you have to deal with those animals responsible. You don’t have to keep them, but you can’t tie them in a sack and toss them in a river eitherl you didn’t want your cat to get pregnant, but the choices you made led to that, and know you have to deal with respect to the new life involved with the consquences of your choice. Why do we hold human life in lower respect than animal life?
Reality: The fact remains that studies alleging a causal link between abortion and breast cancer are outdated and/or repudiated by independent scientific studies.
One thing with many studies, operator bias notwithstanding, is that depending how they’re structured, they may incur recall bias or reporting bias. Women with breast cancer may report having abortions at a higher rate as they want a reason behind their cancer, versus women without cancer, thus giving a false reading. Better to take women that have abortions, and then monitor the rate of breast cancer.
“even if it’s as simple as ‘logic exists’ or ‘i can trust my senses’ – which is quite different to having a biased position or pre-thought in regards to the topic under consideration.
“there was a study published *this year* from a non pro-life source that found a link between abortion and breast cancer” – where is it then? Who is it by?
“Choice comes before action” – maybe, but choice is also confronted because of an action which has taken place.
“having made the choice to participate in a procreative act, to try to avoid the consquences of that choice” – seat belts and air bags allow us to avoid the consequences of certain choices too. Abortion is a valid and legal choice.
“If she wasn’t “with child” (how quaint), she wouldn’t need an abortion” – correct. So what.
“but once they *are* parents” – show me the birth certificate.
“Abortion is an action that happens after the choice to procreate has already taken place.” – no, its an action that happens after the choice to have sex without intending procreation has already taken place.
“I’m not anti-choice, I’m pro-choice” – well no, obviously you are not.
“I, and everyone else I’m familiar with , feel it’s permissible, once feasible, to give up that responsibility and pass it on to another (adoption)” – well you know what, so do I.
Realty – “but once they *are* parents” – show me the birth certificate.
A ‘birther’ as in “Obama … show me the birth certificate.” LOL
Poor Nellie Gray. She is at high risk for breast cancer since she has not borne children.
Jespren says:
December 21, 2011 at 12:29 am
Reality, yes, logic requires a starting bias, even if it’s as simple as ‘logic exists’ or ‘i can trust my senses’. It’s not only a well known concept, it’s considered a requirement of the rules of logic. Ask a logician if you can’t see the obviousness of the statement.
Btw, there was a study published *this year* from a non pro-life source that found a link between abortion and breast cancer. Very recent in fact, just got the update on it a few days ago. If you think all links are just outdated studies from pro-life sources, it’s because you’re either woefully ignorant of the full scope of such studies or you hope whoever you are dealing with is.
Choice comes before action. I’m all for choice, choice is good. I never think a woman should be forced to participate in a procreative act against her will, nor should a man. Rape is a horrible, horrible thing, and one of the reasons why is because it takes away such an intrinsic and important choice. What I’m against is someone, once having made the choice to participate in a procreative act, to try to avoid the consquences of that choice by killing a 3rd party. By the time a women needs an abortion she is ALREADY PREGNANT. If she wasn’t “with child”, she wouldn’t need an abortion. I’ve yet to meet a single person who thought women (or men) should be forced to be parents, but once they *are* parents, allowing them to kill their children should *not* be an acceptable way to get out of a choice they ALREADY made. Action happens after choice. Abortion is an action that happens after the choice to procreate has already taken place. I’m not anti-choice, I’m pro-choice, and pro-taking responsibility for your choice. But wait, I, and everyone else I’m familiar with on the REAL pro-choice side, feel it’s permissible, once feasible, to give up that responsibility and pass it on to another (adoption).
(Denise) Jespren, do you believe adoption would be more popular if it could be done pre-natally? If so, do you support research to make it possible to transplant embryos and fetuses from an unwilling womb into a willing one?
Also, are you familiar with the negatives associated with adoption?
Carla, I didn’t say what those negatives are. I just said there are negatives and people should be aware of them. Perhaps open adoptions will diminish those negatives.
Perhaps pre-natal adoption, when it becomes feasible, will have a similar or even greater effect.
Thank God for “natural disasters” which prevent those abortion appointments! A friend of a co-worker was scheduled for an abortion but a snowstorm kept her at home that day. She then decided to keep the baby!
JB says:
December 21, 2011 at 9:52 am
Thank God for “natural disasters” which prevent those abortion appointments! A friend of a co-worker was scheduled for an abortion but a snowstorm kept her at home that day. She then decided to keep the baby!
(Denise) When it was born, did she still keep him or her or was the newborn placed for adoption? My guess is that she is raising it. It is very unusual for a girl or woman to carry to term, give birth, and then not raise the child. A bond is formed by the process of carrying to term and giving birth. The female’s body is prepared to feed the baby with breast milk.
Denise – she kept the baby. She was having marital problems at the time she found out she was pregnant but they worked it out – started actually talking about things – and now the baby is the littlest sibling in their family!
Since Whoopi Goldberg has been in the news recently, I thought I might mention what she said about her abortions. She said all were very early when it isn’t in her opinion a human life but “just stuff coming together.” This statement seems very ignorant. It gives the impression that in the womb during the early period, things are moving from different points toward each other. What is actually happening is that the organism is that the parts are differentiating, developing, and growing.
“A ‘birther’ as in “Obama … show me the birth certificate.” LOL” – how about you show me Trig’s? LOL.
But really, if a fetus has ‘parents’, show me the birth certificate. Otherwise they are impending parents.
Reality says:
But really, if a fetus has ‘parents’, show me the birth certificate. Otherwise they are impending parents.
**************************************************
Why does it seem like some pro-choicers want to redefine words?
par·ent
? ?
noun
1. a father or a mother.
2. an ancestor, precursor, or progenitor.
3. a source, origin, or cause.
4. a protector or guardian.
5. Biology . any organism that produces or generates another.
No redefining there Lrning, it backs up what I said.
Got too busy to respond today but I’m back and will try to address everything that was addressed towards me. So, first
The recently published study with the very long title of: “Influence of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Prolonged Estrogen Exposure on Risk of Breast Cancer Among Women in Armenia” published by Lilit Khachatryan of the Department of Public Health at the American University of Armenia, which was in collaboration with other universities including John Hopkins found a 13% year.y increase in breast cancer with delaying childbirth and a 4.95 fold increase in risk for those who had not birthed by age 30. It also found a 2.86 fold increase related to induced abortions. You can tell by the title this wasn’t an abortion study, it was simply found as well, which is hardly surprising given the staggering amount of abortions an average Armenian women has.
Second, a birth certificate has absolutely nothing to do with a person being a person or parents being parents. There are hundreds of millions of adults and people of all ages walking around today without birth certificates. A birth certificate is simply a govermental way of acknowledging a legal and counted birth. In parts of India and China unlawful pregancies will not be governmentally acknowledged with a birth certificate, making that person incapable of social interaction, they can’t go to school, get a job, draw government assistance, etc. In other less developed areas the government either doesn’t or can’t record and issue birth certificates for all/any births. Even in America, it’s not like the baby pops out and the doctors hand you a birth certificate. It took over a month for me to get the birth certificate issued for both my children. A lack of a birth certificate is about as pertinent as a lack of a driver’s license.
the term ‘parent’ can mean any number of things, but one of it’s most fundemental is a biological progenetor of an offspring. The moment the sperm fuses with the egg to create a new biologically human offspring the progenetors of that offspring, the mother and father, are parents, their genetic material has combined to produce a new being. When 2 human parents produce a genetic offspring, the offspring is also human. Now it might live a few days, a few weeks, a few months, a few years, or a hundred years, but regardless of it’s age when it dies, it already has parents and those parents already have an offspring.
Third, Denise, yes I would be thrilled to see science advance to the state where children could be safely transfered inutero or between uteri. (Provided it is produced through ethical means) Although I think the application is more likely, at first anyway, to be useful in helping ectopic pregnancies, placents previa pregnancies, or acrea pregnancies. It certainly is possible that one day a woman may be able to give her child to another to take care of before what we now consider ‘viability’. Viability also is almost sure to continue to be pushed back with the invention of better medical care for the very young. A 24 week old baby now has a 50% chance at surviving if birthed prematurely, but the same could not be said just a generation ago. In the early 80’s a 28 week old baby was just beginning to be considered viable (although some earlier ones did survive, just like some survive today before 24 weeks). And yes, I am also aware of the inherient difficulties in regards to adoption. I do think the move towards open adoption will help, but regardless, a less-than-perfect life is better than a violent death. And not just for the baby, but for the mother. A pregnant woman’s body is biologically hardwired to protect her growing and helpless offspring. It goes against all our insticts, both physical and emotional, to let harm come to our babies. A mother’s body will even starve itself to shunt calories and nutrients to a growing baby. Women are made to protect their children, and killing them goes against that most basic of biological requirements, to reproduce and to protect the next generation.
Reality: But really, if a fetus has ‘parents’, show me the birth certificate. Otherwise they are impending parents.
This is one of those deals that really doesn’t go anywhere. ;)
There’s a biological mother and father at conception, and you can also say, “Congratulations on becoming a grandparent,” and “I became a mother today,” and “Hey, Harry just became a dad, and he’s handing out cigars.”
“a 13% year.y increase in breast cancer with delaying childbirth and a 4.95 fold increase in risk for those who had not birthed by age 30.” – so still no causal link to abortion.
“It also found a 2.86 fold increase related to induced abortions” – ‘related’, how related? Did it also address other lifestyle factors?
Doesn’t sound very demonstrative of any link with abortion.
You’re right Doug. When we consider ourselves ‘parents’ is rather subjective. When my first born was on the way I considered myself an impending parent – “hey, I’m going to be a parent” – when the second pregnancy failed to achieve fruition, I considered myself a parent of one, not two. I didn’t go around saying ‘I’m a parent of two but the second didn’t enter the world alive’. If the second pregnancy had resulted in a live birth and died later then I may have said ‘I was a parent of two but one of my children died’. Most people I know speak about it in the same manner. On a number of occasions people, when asked how many kids they have, have answered ‘two’. Later I have found out that they had had a third child but that child at died in infancy. I was actually mildly surprised when people here referred to themselves as ‘a parent of four’ when they only actually had two children.
Reality, the word choice “related” was my choice, as I did not want to repeat myself in my sentence structure by saying “increase in risk” again. It’s considered poor English to repeat yourself. My fault, I wrote with the intent of being read by an audience that was accustomed to English grammar. A almost 3 fold increase in risk if a woman had an abortion doesn’t translate into abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer? Would you prefer another language? I speak a bit of Latin and a bit of German, but I’m sure if you let me know what language you are most familiar with I can find someone to translate. See, if doing X leads to a greater risk of Y, then doing X increases a persons risk of Y. Saying otherwise is being dishonest.
I included the first teo statistics because 1) abortions on a first time mom would certainly delay childbearing so it *is* relavent and 2) as an example about how the study was not a ‘anti-abortion’ study, it dealt with other things (as you should be able to tell by the title). If I tell a 1st time pregnant woman seeking an abortion “every year you delay childbirth you increase your breast cancer risk by 13%, you are pregnant now, if you abort this pregnancy you will miss out on the protection it provides and your risk of breast cancer will go up” I am making a true statement. It’s not a politically correct statement, but it is a true statement. (It is also a true statement if a tell a women who is undecided if she is ready to start trying for kids the same thing, regardless of what delays childbirth, women are meant to bear kids, and it does our bodies good to do so.)
On your other topic, I know any number of people who list stillbirths or miscarriages in their ‘total’ child count, but may, for conviences sake, only list living children if asked by a random person. It’s the same for grandparents too. If someone asks me how many grandparents I have I am just as correct in stating 3, 4, or 5 (I have one grandparent who I never really knew, who I don’t think about, and who is not part of the family, but he is still my grandfather. I have 3 grandparents who I grew up with calling my grandparents. And one has remarried. So I have a legal total of 5 between marriage and biology, but if the average person asks I would say 3. The same goes with cousins. I have, by blood, 7 first cousins. But 2 of them are also my step siblings, and 1 of those I have only met briefly. So on general count I have 5 cousins. But I’m also very close to 3 of my 3rd cousins, and they have 3 adopted siblings that I am less close to due to age. So if I count everyone I consider to be a cousin (which doesn’t include my step siblings) I have 11 cousins. In legal accutality I have quite a few more, but I don’t know them well and wouldn’t count them. My rambling point is simply, when it comes to how one counts family, there is no right answer.
Oh, and as far as children go I started saying I have 2 as soon as it was common knowledge I was pregnant. My little ones has shoving and kicking matches while the youngest was still inutero (she objected to brother leaning against my belly, he objected to not being able to snuggle). She kicked him so hard once she just about knocked him off my lap. I was most distinctly a parent of 2 children before my government issued birth certificate arrived for my daughter.
“We suggest our findings imply the need for further investigation in Armenian and in other populations with similar characteristics.” – from the study you mentioned.
“A almost 3 fold increase in risk if a woman had an abortion doesn’t translate into abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer? Would you prefer another language?” – no, I’d prefer that you try to draw conclusions from a study which looked at all potential causes, not just notes that something may be related.
“if doing X leads to a greater risk of Y, then doing X increases a persons risk of Y.” – yet the study didn’t show that X did indeed cause Y in regards to what you are claiming. It didn’t look to see if it may be caused by R, S, T or U; or even a combination of factors.
“1) abortions on a first time mom would certainly delay childbearing so it *is* relavent” – and did the study identify how many abortions are on first pregnancies and how many are on post childbirth pregnancies?
“I have, by blood, 7 first cousins. But 2 of them are also my step siblings” – two of your fisrt cousins are also your step siblings? (blink)
“when it comes to how one counts family, there is no right answer” – correct. That’s why when childless people claim to be parents or have children or, more especially, try to tell post-abortive women that they are parents and have children – you’ll understand why I take it with a large grain of salt.
“I was most distinctly a parent of 2 children before my government issued birth certificate arrived for my daughter.” – as in this case.
Reality, yes, two of my blood first cousins are legally my step-siblings. Before my biological father died he asked his brother (then unmarried but having children from a previous marriage) to come take care of his family. I was raised by my uncle, whom we considered our father and everyone else thought we were his blood kids. I decided to stop keeping secrets when I became an adult so I no longer am bothered by the oddities in my family line.
Denise, I am aware of violent death associated with *foster care*, but everything I’ve read shows children adopted in infantcy (which is almost exclusively what we’re talking about here) tend to do as well or statistically better than their biological counterpoints (the last is usually attributed to adoptive parents usually being richer than average). Even if there is something I’m missing that you are refering to, the possibility of something is still better than the certainty of something.
Jespren says:
December 22, 2011 at 8:17 am
Denise, I am aware of violent death associated with *foster care*, but everything I’ve read shows children adopted in infantcy (which is almost exclusively what we’re talking about here) tend to do as well or statistically better than their biological counterpoints (the last is usually attributed to adoptive parents usually being richer than average). Even if there is something I’m missing that you are refering to, the possibility of something is still better than the certainty of something.
(Denise) Carla doesn’t want me to mention certain facts associated with adoption and violent death. Write to me at Janatrude@aol.com and I’ll tell you what you are missing. If you are pro-life, you should be aware of the connection between adoption and violent death.
You don’t indicate whether or not you were happy in the situation Jespren. I hope you were. It certainly sounds like all the best intentions were in place. Very cool.
About that legislation in the UK that would encourage abortion for HIV positive babies: If the babies are HIV postive, the mothers carrying them must be too. So, this is really a demand for abortion for HIV positive women, even though medical advances mean that treatment during pregnancy greatly reduces the risk that the child will be HIV positive after birth.
Are you aware that when abortion clinics cut corners to reduced costs (with an aim to increase profits), they often cut down the amount of bleach they mix into their cleaning solution. This means that the instruments aren’t properly sterilized between usages. So, if you go in to the clinic for an abortion, they may put something inside you that wasn’t sterilized properly after it was used on the last woman to have an abortion. If she was HIV positive, it could put her virus up inside you.
How do I know this? Up in Canada, I went to a pro-life speech, given by a former abortionist. She gave her testimony. They cut down on the bleach in the cleaning solution to save money. She admitted this was common practice and that it potentially exposed women to the AIDS virus.
This idea of automatically aborting any baby potentially exposed to HIV will increase the number of cases of women who catch HIV from having an abortion. Not only is it unnecessary to abort such babies, but it will kill women besides.
But who cares as long as abortion is promoted. That’s the only thing that matters, right? At least to a pro-abort.
You, on the other hand, might want to think twice before you decide to have an abortion.
Reality, yes, it was far more good than bad. It allowed my brother and I to grow up in a stable, loving, two parent household, and we have a father in our lives. It was at times very difficult in it’s secrecy, however, as it’s very difficult to mourn, work through issues, or relate to people about a parental death when everyone thinks both of yours are alive and well. Which is one reason why I decided to stop keeping secrets when I went to college, it’s much easier to express empathy when people can know you have a reason for empathy. But, yes, ultimately the ancient concept of a ‘kinsman redeemer’ worked very well in our family.