Out of the mouths of babes defending younger babes...

by Carder

... comes a summary of pro-life talking points.

Notice the lack of um's, ah's and uh's so characteristic of a certain leader of the free world.

Agree with Ace of Spades, "I don't think the arguments are novel but the case is well-made. And dang, she's a very poised public speaker."

Sadly, the power of her cuteness is not enough to stifle the unleashing of vile YouTube comments. Mom had to disable comments this morning because of them.

[HT: The Other McCain via Ace of Spades and Hot Air]


Comments:

She is surprisingly articulate! That was beautifully done. Beautifully done.

Posted by: Bethany at February 12, 2009 11:14 AM


God bless this child. She speaks her mind better than I do at times. :/

Posted by: Jenny Z at February 12, 2009 11:15 AM


Wow a 12 yr. old fascist. Didn't we just get done with 8 yrs. that? Whats next, Prussian Blue music videos?

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 12, 2009 11:17 AM


Prussian Blue? Isn't that Sen. Robert Byrd's favorite group?

This girl is excellent! The insane reaction of YLT proves it.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at February 12, 2009 11:21 AM


This child is fortunate to have been exposed to the truth about abortion at such a young age. Many kids grow up without ever knowing anything about it except the meaningless slogans and mantras of the proabort mafia.

Posted by: Doyle at February 12, 2009 11:23 AM


Yo La Tengo, did you listen to what she had to say? Care to refute it?

Posted by: Jenny Z at February 12, 2009 11:29 AM


"Notice the lack of um's, ah's and uh's so characteristic of a certain leader of the free world."


That's exactly what I was thinking. This girl will be a VERY strong voice for the unborn when she is older. Now I see where the bar is set for my daughters...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 12, 2009 11:37 AM


Wow, Jenny Z, I just very very quickly checked out your blog and noticed that your two latest entries discuss something Father Z talks about. Good for you! God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 12, 2009 11:39 AM


My two oldest will be watching this when they get home from school....muwhahahahhahha.

She is so articulate. Her momma must be proud!!

Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 11:41 AM


Hi Jill - its Amy in SD. I met you at the ProLife Bloggers in DC last month. Thanks for featuring Lia here. We introduced this video on our website www.bound4life.com and the response has been phenomenal. As you mentioned, we could see on Youtube that there has been a lot of evil unleashed against this little saint. If everyone could take a moment and pray for her, I am sure that would a blessing.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 12, 2009 12:09 PM


Very well stated.

I can just imagine the vitriol she received in comments from the pro-abortion side.
Can't blame her mom for closing the comments.

Posted by: SB Smith at February 12, 2009 12:09 PM


"Notice the lack of um's, ah's and uh's so characteristic of a certain leader of the free world."


Yes. It must be hard for someone whose mom probably wrote the whole thing to read it back verbatim. Not that stupid 'personal touch' crap Obama gives when really thinking about what he's saying. That's dumb to do that..

She's twelve. She memorized a speech. Good for her.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 12:26 PM



"Notice the lack of um's, ah's and uh's so characteristic of a certain leader of the free world."


That's exactly what I was thinking. This girl will be a VERY strong voice for the unborn when she is older. Now I see where the bar is set for my daughters...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 12, 2009 11:37 AM


yes, just what the world needs - another partisan hack inculcated with talking points, devoid of critical thinking and analysis. You know if you start them young, they eventually join the other side -

Look at me, I used to goto anti-choice rallies with my (formerly) anti-choice mom. In HS when pro-lifers trespassed onto school property with fake fetus photos I flipped them off and walked away.

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 12, 2009 12:30 PM


Jospehine, you do realize that all Obama is doing is reading a speech back verbatim that his speech writers wrote for him right?

So even if this young girl is guilty of what you accuse her of, she is just on par with the president of the united states and every other elected official in the world.

She delivered the speech very well, and was obviously thinking about the implications of her words.

I find it interesting that you mention her age. All across the country girls her age can walk into an abortion clinic and have an abortion without their parents knowledge. If you have contempt for a 12 year old speaking about abortion, you should be even more bothered by the ones actually having the abortions.

Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 12:34 PM


Sadly, the power of her cuteness is not enough to stifle the unleashing of vile YouTube comments. Mom had to disable comments this morning because of them.

Not at all surprising.

As Mark Shea is fond of saying: Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that despises children.

Posted by: John Jansen at February 12, 2009 12:36 PM


Totally unimpressive video. She memorized a script written by someone else and recited it for the camera. These are the same basic pro-life arguments we've all heard a thousand times. They're not somehow more profound coming from a child. The kids who acted in my 6th grade play (at a public school btw) could have done just as well.

Posted by: toadessa at February 12, 2009 12:43 PM


"Jospehine, you do realize that all Obama is doing is reading a speech back verbatim that his speech writers wrote for him right?"

You do realize he has to make changes to that speech, off the top of HIS head while speaking it? You do realize for interview questions, where most of his "ums" are from, he doesn't have a speechwriter there with him?

She's a kid that memorized a speech. Good for her. Definitely not something amazing. If it were a 12 year old speaking about being pro-choice, we wouldn't be talking about how articulate she was, we'd be saying crap about her parents. Simple as that.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 12:44 PM


Josephine, Obama fields questions like "what do you think of A-rod's drug use?" and calls on the Huffington Post, I really don't think his brain is being taxed to the point of stammering.

Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 1:00 PM


View an ultrasound done on a pregnant human woman, preferably a 3D or 4D ultrasound and tell me with a STRAIGHT Face that what you see is NOT human.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 12, 2009 1:02 PM


Yeah, she's just a sixth-grader who memorized a speech (which seems to have p*ssed several people off), and she did a very nice job with her delivery. Anybody else here have to give persuasive speeches in middle school, or was that just me??

She probably had to do this for a school project, and she had to time it, record it and practice it. (Notice how she addresses her fellow classmates.) It was her mother's decision to post it on youtube, most likely.

Don't hate her because she's only 12, yet she can see abortion for what it really is. And I wouldn't say that her mother was the only one who taught her that. Ask any young child what it means to be pregnant...they know that it's a human being (a "baby" is the usual answer) growing in there.
But...give them a couple years to get jaded and cynical and hateful of those who defend innocent life. Give them time to swallow the lies (despite the fact that they've seen pictures of fetal development) that "it's not a baby." Maybe then the pro-choice side will be willing to call girls like this one "articulate and independent thinkers." What a joke.

Posted by: Kel at February 12, 2009 1:07 PM


She's a kid that memorized a speech. Good for her. Definitely not something amazing. If it were a 12 year old speaking about being pro-choice, we wouldn't be talking about how articulate she was, we'd be saying crap about her parents. Simple as that.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 12:44 PM

your cynicism overwhelms me.
Why is it that you cannot see the positive aspect of this? That here is a young girl who KNOWS what "choice" really means - the death of a baby. Sheesh!
Maybe you think she's been "brainwashed"?

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 1:08 PM


She knows what her mom told her to say. I don't understand why this is impressive in the least. Like I said, if she were doing this for pro-choicers, the conversation would be completely different. No one would be impressed she knows what it means, or at the quality of her speaking, and you know it. However, you still have the guts to talk about "bias"...it's unreal.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 1:14 PM


My 9 year old niece did the walk for life here on Jan 31st. She had a vague idea of what it was about, but doesn't know the GORY details. I was happy she stood up for life. She's a very smart girl.


I am glad this 12 year old girl (the info on youtube said she's a 7th grader, not 6th grader) did a great speech. I hope she continues this for many many years.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 12, 2009 1:16 PM


J,
I find it hard to believe you think abortion is wrong.

Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 1:18 PM


Liz: I think many young children honestly really do get what abortion is.
They don't have to be told. The problem is that after years of being told it's a woman's "choice" the reality becomes lost.
It's a baby NOT a choice.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 1:20 PM


Well, Carla, that's no skin off my teeth.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 1:20 PM


I am glad this 12 year old girl (the info on youtube said she's a 7th grader, not 6th grader) did a great speech. I hope she continues this for many many years.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 12, 2009 1:16 PM
**************************************

Ah, my mistake. I assumed she was a 6th grader. Makes even more sense that she's in junior high and is having to do speeches in English class.

Posted by: Kel at February 12, 2009 1:20 PM


Liz: I think many young children honestly really do get what abortion is.
They don't have to be told. The problem is that after years of being told it's a woman's "choice" the reality becomes lost.
It's a baby NOT a choice.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 1:20 PM**********************

Exactly.

Posted by: Kel at February 12, 2009 1:21 PM


Josephine, unfortunately, I have the same impression as Carla. I'd love to believe that you think abortion is wrong but it seems to me that your heart just isn't there yet. :(

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 1:24 PM


Look at me, I used to goto anti-choice rallies with my (formerly) anti-choice mom. In HS when pro-lifers trespassed onto school property with fake fetus photos I flipped them off and walked away.

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 12, 2009 12:30 PM

so you are trying to tell us that "fake fetus" pictures changed your mind?
And how were they fake YLT? were they different from the pictures taken today of babies in the womb?
Wouldn't the proper response if you were TRULY prolife have been to get real pictures of fetuses and use those?

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 1:34 PM


Perhaps someone can show me a I-used-to-be-prolife-until-I-watched-an-abortion-procedure-and-now-I'm-prochoice persuasive/informative speech?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at February 12, 2009 1:39 PM


If the arguements are the same as what is said by adults, then I honestly don't see what the big fuss is.

IT is possible that she understands and believes everything she is saying, and it is equally possible that she is just reading the words and that's it.

What I do have a problem with, regardless of the situation, is that people are actually giving this young girl hateful comments. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can't be civil and either say you don't agree or simply don't watch the video! There is no need for hate to be spewed on this girl, especially when it is her mother who posted the video and not her herself.

Remember everyone, agree or not, it's always better if you can be civil in your responses!

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 1:42 PM


I so appreciate your work. My Mother aborted my older brother and we miss him terribly. I wrote about it on my blog and it confirmed for me that I must fight against this. I just put a link on there to an article you wrote. When I come back to visit with a bit more time I will look for ways to help fight this mass murder.

Many Blessings, keep up the GOOD fight!

Ace

Posted by: Ace at February 12, 2009 1:46 PM


IT is possible that she understands and believes everything she is saying, and it is equally possible that she is just reading the words and that's it.

What are you implying Jodes? That the argument against abortion is so complex that a 12 year old girl couldn't possibly understand it?
pretty simple in my mind: choice=abortion= dead baby
What's to get?

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 1:50 PM


What I do have a problem with, regardless of the situation, is that people are actually giving this young girl hateful comments. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can't be civil and either say you don't agree or simply don't watch the video! There is no need for hate to be spewed on this girl, especially when it is her mother who posted the video and not her herself.

but that's YOuTube, don't you think so? There's always vile comments about something on that site - it seems to go with the url! ;)

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 1:52 PM


TSTL, no I am not saying she couldn't understand it. I am saying that I remember doing speeches for school, and if the speech was long, I would ignore the meaning and just say the words.

That's really it.

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 1:52 PM


TSTL, so you think it's ok to give out hate just because you disagree? Just because it's on youtube? ;P

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 1:54 PM


TSTL, no I am not saying she couldn't understand it. I am saying that I remember doing speeches for school, and if the speech was long, I would ignore the meaning and just say the words.

That's really it.

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 1:52 PM

well I know that when kids do speeches for school they are researched and they are written out first.
So I'm sure if that was the case here, she likely does understand what she is talking about. That's my feeling anyway.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 1:54 PM


Ace,
How can you miss someone you never knew? People can't see into the future and predict that they will like, love, or miss something that didn't exist. It's similar to those arguments that abortion is responsible for cancer still being around, because if it hadn't happened than someone would be born and cure it. That argument could just as easily be - what would the world be like if Hitler's mother had chosen an abortion?

Posted by: Kat at February 12, 2009 1:56 PM


TSTL, I agree, that is a possibility, all I'm arguing is that the opposite is true...Maybe her mom "helped" a little too much, and she is just saying the words.

But, we really don't know the situation, and I don't really think it matters either way.

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 1:57 PM


I never knew my maternal grandfather (he died of cancer before I was born). That doesn't mean I don't miss him, just because I never knew him. I didn't get to meet my great grandmother (my mom's grandmother) because she died a few years after my grandfather did, again, before I was born.

Just because ACE didn't get to meet her brother doesn't mean she can't MISS him.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 12, 2009 2:00 PM


Jodes, I miscarried two of my children and I can tell you that I miss them both terribly.

Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 2:05 PM


Oops, that should be directed to Kat, not Jodes.

Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 2:08 PM


Ace,
Thank you for commenting!! I miss the daughter I aborted. I miss her place in my life and I am missing what she could be doing right now.

Kat,
There is no arguing an abortion story or someone's feelings about it. Best to accept it.

Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 2:13 PM


Lauren, I happen to agree with you that you CAN miss someone even if you never met them. I think it is a different kind of 'miss' but can be just as powerful as if you had known them.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 12, 2009 2:14 PM


sorry, that anon was me

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 2:15 PM


I think it's funny that Josephine still pretends to be pro-life.

Remember:

-Obama reciting a speech full of meaningless platitudes = Brilliant!
-Obama saying "uh, uh... um... .... uhhhh..." twenty times in every question and answer session proves he's a deep thinker!

-A 12 year old reciting a speech full of pro-life truths = garbage, according to the "pro-life" Josephine
-George W. Bush stumbling over his words in question and answer sessions proves he's an idiot!

And may I add, Sarah Palin stopping to think about her answers instead of blurting out "uh, umm.... uhhhhh...." proves that she's an imbecile. Remember, Sarah, you have to say "umm.... uh... guhhhhhh..." while you're thinking about what to say, because that makes you a genius. Just ask Josephine.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at February 12, 2009 2:23 PM


It's obvious that certain pro-choicer's hatred for the unborn has blinded them to the talent that this 12 year old has for public speaking. I am always more than happy to admit when I hear a well-spoken atheist or pro-choicer or read a well-written book on atheism as I have done many times. You can disagree with the content but at least respect the fact that someone is well-spoken.

If anyone can find what they believe to be someone who is a wonderful public speaker discussing how great abortion is, I would be more than happy to admit that they have good public speaking skills. But in this case, we see that several pro-choicers have let their pro-choice beliefs drive even their ability to judge objectively the public speaking credentials of a 12 year old girl. In what other arenas of life has a pro-choice belief blinded the pro-choicer?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 12, 2009 2:24 PM


"I think it's funny that Josephine still pretends to be pro-life."
============================

Funny, I thought she was a pro-abort with the way she defends "CHOICE"...could've fooled me..

Posted by: RSD at February 12, 2009 2:31 PM


Josephine is too immature to be pro-life. I actually HOPE she is pro-choice in this rare case. She would make the pro-life movement look bad if she discussed it with other people.

Posted by: Oliver at February 12, 2009 2:34 PM


Also, where are the pro-choice poeple like Bobby Bambino or Carla or Bethany or Lauren etc? Certainly there are the pro-choicers to meet to blind zeal of some of the pro-lifer's here and there are the Camerons in the world to match my admited vitrol and digust with humanity, but honestly, where are the well-reasoned, tempered pro-choice people? Do they simply not exist or do they exist numbers too small to produce a representative on this small sample of internet posters? Maybe it takes a certain level of hatred or flawed reasoning skills to really support abortion.

Jodes is the only one who seems like he/she has a shot, assuming Jodes is pro-choice.

Posted by: Oliver at February 12, 2009 2:38 PM


This kid is a great speaker. It doesn't matter if it was all written beforehand! That's a legitimate type of public speaking -- alternating between 'eye contact' with your audience, and the notes/words you're using to keep yourself on topic.

I remember when I was in 7th grade, my two friends and I did a faux news clip from like 1969 or something, during a history class unit on the counterculture stuff. We wore boxy blazers and my mom's reading glasses (looking more 80's than 60's, but it all seemed like ancient history to us), and had my younger sister on as some radical feminist or another on for an interview, and tailored the questions so that the answers were actual legitimate quotes from this woman, in the 60's. Even with it having been essentially scripted 30 years in advance, our video was full of awkward pauses and suppressed smiles. I think a dog even ran through the "studio" at one point. Then we had a shot of "woodstock" that consisted of me running around in a muumuu, pausing only to tell the interviewer that the music was "groovy" and name-drop a few historically significant facts; the Hudson River in the background the whole time. Looking back, I'm not sure how my teacher managed not to die of laughter.

This kid is a pro in comparison!

Posted by: Alexandra at February 12, 2009 2:42 PM


Hi Alexandra,
I love when you come and type at us!! You have a way with words, girl! Do you have a blog yet?

Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 2:48 PM


Oliver, I am pro-choice and remarkably even tempered and I daresay articulate. But as this is a blog for pro-lifers, I try to stay mum. Why cause a ruckus just for the sake of ruckus-causing, I ask? Maybe there are others like me who just read, comment infrequently, and move on to something else.

Posted by: AM at February 12, 2009 2:57 PM


" I actually HOPE she is pro-choice"


Wow, Oliver. You're disgusting. So you HOPE I advocate abortion, which may include having one? Hmmm... very interesting for a pro-lifer. :)

I've absolutely never defended choice, RSD. I've made fun of the people here for linking EVERYTHING to 'abortion'. Premarital sex, gays, birth control, cohabitating... none of which have to do with abortion. I happen to disagree with everyone on here (except pro-choicers) about those issues. Because-- let's face it, most pro-lifers are Christians. If you want everyone to agree with ALL of your ideas-- well, guess what-- that's why you're failing. :) You don't want to work with anyone. You want to trash talk politicians who are liberal. Unfortunately for you, they're in control. Of everything, right now anyway.

So, you continue to insult people who think differently than you. You can go ahead and keep failing too.


Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 2:57 PM


No teleprompter.

The top Democratic propogandist stutters and stumbles without it.

She is still young and should be playing. This sex education from the first grade on makes kids miss an ordinary childhood.

Posted by: xppc at February 12, 2009 2:57 PM


AM,
A breath of fresh air is always a good thing!! I would welcome your non ruckus causing comments.

Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 3:03 PM


"most pro-lifers are Christians."

"So, you continue to insult people who think differently than you. You can go ahead and keep failing too."

Apparently only certain people are allowed to be insulting! :)

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 12, 2009 3:05 PM


Hi Alexandra,
I love when you come and type at us!! You have a way with words, girl! Do you have a blog yet?

Thanks, Carla! It's always nice to see you too. Tragically, at this point it appears that if you want a massive amount of my typing thrown at you all in one place, you'll need to buy my book, which should be available in approximately 50 billion years, given that I still haven't even gotten around to washing my mug from this morning. I've actually had about 75 cups of green tea already just because I don't want to be "done with" the mug and thus need to wash it. So I just keep making and drinking more tea. I don't really know why brewing tea seems like less work than washing a mug, but it does. Sad, really.

Also, blogs frequently require you to do things like put your actual opinions out there for everyone to see. And I prefer to be a debate-team sort of girl, arguing theoreticals but sticking as much as possible to my "Oh, I never said that's what *I* feel, I just thought that was a legitimate point" schtick. For some reason I've always viewed myself as kind of like a journalist -- observing, discussing maybe, but keeping my own thoughts to myself. I told MK once that it's the New England in me, the nod-and-continue-on-my-way, curtains-down sort of privacy of emotion. Even discussing political things like abortion, (relatively) anonymously on a blog devoted specifically to the subject, feels exposed and kind of like being at a nude beach. With less sunshine and (mercifully) no volleyball.

Posted by: Alexandra at February 12, 2009 3:06 PM


Eileen, I named NO names. I believe it's only an insult if you can even guess who I'm talking about. Since you can't, and we're not supposed to assume, I'm going to say that's way different than saying a specific insult to a specific person. :)

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 3:08 PM


Well, Jo, apparently the mods disagree since it was deleted! :)

Posted by: Eileen #2d at February 12, 2009 3:12 PM


Alexandra,
I shall remain a fan. I will patiently await the printing of your book.

Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 3:13 PM


So why wasn't the insulting comment to me deleted, Eileen? :)

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 3:18 PM


who insulted you? It doesn't look like RSD did.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 12, 2009 3:21 PM


"Josephine is too immature to be pro-life. I actually HOPE she is pro-choice in this rare case. She would make the pro-life movement look bad if she discussed it with other people.
Posted by: Oliver at February 12, 2009 2:34 PM

My post was aimed at no one. This is derogatory to only me, and down right rude.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 3:23 PM


The point that I really wanted to make, Jo, is that you are almost always on the attack, and accuse others of the same things that you -- yourself do. You don't seem to be interested in a reasonable debate.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 12, 2009 3:24 PM


Your post implied almost every pro-lifer on this site so stop the nonsense and go sit in time-out! :)

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 12, 2009 3:25 PM


Oliver,thanks for calling me well-reasoned and tempered! I really do try to keep a civil conversation, because I think it is the only way to have people listen to you.

And, I will not say if I am pro-choice or pro-life, mostly because I like to play the devils advocate in some situations :D

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 3:31 PM


No. I did NOT imply almost every pro-lifer on this site, in NO way. If someone saw themselves in that, that's in no way my fault.

There are certain people on here I'd NEVER think those things about. The one that comes to mind immediately is Bobby. I can't imagine disrespecting him in anyway, because he's never shown ME anything but niceness. We disagree, but I clearly listen and read his posts and understand where he's coming from. I feel the same way about many others.

Eileen, if you look through the thread you will see exactly where I started being rude. It was about after five posts of insults directed at me, all that are still there.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 3:32 PM


AM :"Oliver, I am pro-choice and remarkably even tempered and I daresay articulate. But as this is a blog for pro-lifers, I try to stay mum. Why cause a ruckus just for the sake of ruckus-causing, I ask? Maybe there are others like me who just read, comment infrequently, and move on to something else"

It woudnt cause a ruckus to engage in a reasoned debate. What causes a ruckus is when you post using jacked up logic. I welcome and crave a debate using reason after dealing with many of the people here. I wish I were pro-choice actually so I could discuss with Bobby and others.

Jodes, I play devil's advocate too. Thats fine with me. Just curious, what are your hypothetical thoughts on the issue?

Posted by: Oliver at February 12, 2009 3:47 PM


Oliver, in this particular issue, I would say that this little girl is a very good speaker, and if she so chooses, she can do great things!

What I think we should keep in mind is that it is possible that she believes everything she is saying, and if that is the case, then good for her for having such strong opinions so early in life.
If, however, she is simply reading from a script and doesn't believe it, then maybe some pro-life people are trying to hard to make a point. And in the same way, maybe pro-choice people are trying too hard to discredit a little girl.

Does that answer your question? Or did I run in circles?

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 3:52 PM


Are you serious? She's 12. She doesn't know what she believes. When I was 12 I was "pro-life" too.

Posted by: Leah at February 12, 2009 4:06 PM


Listen, Josephine, you toss a lot of grenades into the room and then get upset when people respond. I don't want anyone to resort to insults but it is tiresome when the people complaining are just as guilty.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 12, 2009 4:09 PM


And -- Bobby is a great guy -- he is a true example of charity. I want to be more like Bobby (as well as others at this site :)

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 12, 2009 4:12 PM


Leah, I don't think it's fair for you to say that someone who is 12 doesn't know what they believe.

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 4:14 PM


Are you serious? She's 12. She doesn't know what she believes. When I was 12 I was "pro-life" too.

That's a bit of a generalization. I mean, anecdotally, when I was 12 I was pro-choice, and I'm still pro-choice today. So clearly all 12-year old opinions hold for life, all the time.

I also thought that I'd never have sex (wrong), that I'd never take any kind of drugs (right so far), that I'd do something awesome with my life (wrong so far, but eh, I'm still young), and that ketchup was the most vile thing in the world (DEFINITELY right). Some things change, some things don't. Using a person's age to invalidate her opinion is kind of ineffective because, really, it's all relative. I could be like, "Twelve year olds don't know what they think," and then some 80-year old guy could be like, "Oh yeah? Well neither do 26-year olds, so shut up." Pretty soon the only person who's allowed to have an opinion is the oldest person in the room, and if I wanted to live like that I'd move to Korea! (I kid, I kid. But after my lengthy diatribes on Korea the other day I had to throw it in there.)

I'd say it's the strength of the argument that matters, not the age of the person making it. And yes, she could be reading an argument someone else wrote, and coached her to repeat eloquently. We could endlessly debate whether the YouTube Girl believes what she's saying or not. But does it really matter? Does it change her argument, or her delivery of it, both of which seem to be the main points of discussion here? Isn't it more important to ask whether YOU believe what she's saying, than whether she does?

Posted by: Alexandra at February 12, 2009 4:18 PM


Eileen, like I already said, I didn't insult until I was insulted. I don't see how it's fair in ANYWAY to edit my post, and leave all the posts insulting me. It's a good example of what every pro-choicer here complains about: crazily different special treatment.

I try to never "throw the first grenade"... and you'd be hard pressed to find an instance where I did.

Leah, I don't know.. I think maybe she DOES think abortion is wrong. I don't, however, think she understands what exactly abortion is or WHY it s wrong. But no way was that whole speech her doing. I was more mad that they compared this super rehearsed thing by a random twelve year old to the President. It's insulting.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 4:20 PM


Also guys, OMG, doing your taxes totally kills a green-tea buzz. Just FYI.

Posted by: Alexandra at February 12, 2009 4:21 PM


Get the whole story at: http://qik.com/bound4life.

Posted by: Amy at February 12, 2009 4:47 PM


TSTL, so you think it's ok to give out hate just because you disagree? Just because it's on youtube? ;P

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 1:54 PM

thank you for misinterpreting my post.
I merely stated this is par for the course on YouTube. I merely note it. That's all. I don't agree with it of course.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 4:47 PM


TSTL, no worries, I understand that you didn't mean it in that way, but, just because it is youtube doesn't mean we should expect it.

Sorry if I upset you with that comment.

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 4:55 PM


@Leah: I've been pro-choice since I was 13 (didn't pay attention to this nonsense when I was 12).

Alexandra makes a good point- as per usual! ^_^

Posted by: Rae at February 12, 2009 5:51 PM


Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 12, 2009 4:09 PM

Truer words have never been said. A well spoken 12 year old gets a "so what?" I think if the topic were different she might have gotten a pat on the back.

*Wink* I can't WAIT to hear how I'm wrong though! Too funny! ;)

Posted by: Kristen at February 12, 2009 5:55 PM


Also guys, OMG, doing your taxes totally kills a green-tea buzz. Just FYI.

Posted by: Alexandra at February 12, 2009 4:21 PM

It kills ANY kind of buzz. I get a whole $66 back! Yahoo! I don't owe!

Posted by: Kristen at February 12, 2009 5:57 PM


Hmm... perhaps you are right. This child may know what she believes, but I highly doubt she knows why she believes it other than "My mommy says" or something to that effect. Josephine is right--she's getting way to much credit in any case. This is pretty clearly rehearsed. And also rhetorical.

Posted by: Leah at February 12, 2009 6:05 PM


are you saying its NOT possible for a young girl to be against abortion, Leah?



Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 12, 2009 6:19 PM


Did I say that? Reread what I wrote.

Posted by: Leah at February 12, 2009 7:31 PM


Are you serious? She's 12. She doesn't know what she believes. When I was 12 I was "pro-life" too.

Posted by: Leah at February 12, 2009 4:06 PM

You got a point there Leah. When I was 12 I think I still believed in God.

Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 8:16 PM


Ok, leah and asitis, if you think that 12 year olds can not fully understand the situation why do you believe they should be allowed to have abortions without their parents knowledge?

Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 8:23 PM


TSTL, no worries, I understand that you didn't mean it in that way, but, just because it is youtube doesn't mean we should expect it.

Sorry if I upset you with that comment.

Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 4:55 PM

hey I'm totally cool with your comment. No problems! and no apology required! :-D

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 8:26 PM


Did I say I think 12 year olds should be allowed to get abortions without their parent's consent?

Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 8:29 PM


Asitis, no but that is a common pro-choice view. Do you believe parental consent should be required for abortions?

Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 8:41 PM


Lauren, is it really a common view among pro-choice that 12 year olds should be allowed abortions without parental consent? Where did you get this?

Are you asking me do I beleive parental consent should be required under the age of 18?

Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 8:48 PM


It is a common view that parental consent should not be required to obtain an abortion regardless of the age of the girl.

Do you believe parental consent should be required under the age of 18?

Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 8:49 PM


Well, Lauren I think extending that to 12 years old is a strectch. I mean really.... how many 12 year old have abortions each year in the U.S.?

Okay... so, do I believe parental consent should be required for under the age of 18? Forgive me if this rambles because I haven't relly thoguht about this before. Here goes....Well I have mixed feelings there. I think a parent should be aware of what their child is doing in general. If a young teen (say 12-15) is having sex I think a parent should know about it. I think this is too young. But at the same time I don't think a parent should be able to deny an abortion.

Perhaps this: Set a resonable age of consent (16?). If she is under the age of consent, parental consent should be required.

Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 9:09 PM


Things aren't always what they seem, are they?!

Oh Sister Josephine,
What do all these Policemen mean
By coming to the convent in a grim limousine
After 'Sister Josephine'

While you, 'Sister Josephine',
You sit with your boots up on the alter screen
You smoke one last cigar
What a funny nun you are!

The Policemen say that 'Josephine's a terrorist in diguise,
For fifteen years or more been on the run;
The sisters disbelieve it, "No, that can't be Josephine"
Just think about her tenderness towards the younger nuns…

Oh, Sister Josephine,
They're searching the chapel where you've been seen
The nooks and the crannies of the nun's canteen
After Sister Josephine...

While you, "Sister Josephine",
You sip one farewell benedictine
Before your Au Revoir
A right funny 'nun' you are!

No longer will her snores ring through the chapel during prayers,
Nor her lustful moanings fill the stilly night;
No more empty bottles of alter wine come clunking from her cell,
No longer will the cloister toilet seat stand upright...

Oh, 'Sister Josephine',
Founder of the convent poker team
They're searching through your bundles of Playboy magazines
After 'Sister Josephine'

While you, 'Sister Josephine',
You give a goodbye sniff of benzedrine
To the convent budgerigar
A bloody funny nun you are

Admittedly, her hands are big and hairy,
And embellished with a curious tattoo;
Admittedly, her voice is on the deep side
And she seems to shave more often than the other sisters do...

Oh, Sister Josephine,
Slipping through their fingers like vaseline
Leaving them to clutch your empty crinoline
After Sister Josephine

While you, Sister Josephine,
Streaking through the suburbs when last seen
Dressed only in your wimple and your rosary
What a funny 'nun' you seem to be.

all due apologies to J. Thackeray

Posted by: slainte at February 12, 2009 9:12 PM


@Asitis: an alternative would be to have the child talk to a social worker to see if it's advisable to get the parents involved but still have an adult to give consent?

Posted by: Rae at February 12, 2009 9:15 PM


"@Leah: I've been pro-choice since I was 13 (didn't pay attention to this nonsense when I was 12)."

Rae, that 12 year old has a higher maturity level than you.

Posted by: Jasper at February 12, 2009 9:30 PM


Ace,
How can you miss someone you never knew?

Ask that to the millions of women who have experienced a miscarriage.

You could start here:
http://www.misdiagnosedmiscarriage.com/mycommunity/viewforum.php?f=28&sid=b107f1efe311f88b229c7c57a4b519ca

Posted by: Bethany at February 12, 2009 10:04 PM


I... love... this video.

Posted by: Alex at February 13, 2009 12:04 AM


@Jasper: I'm sure she does. I've been stunted in the maturity area since I was 10. *shrugs*

Posted by: Rae at February 13, 2009 12:16 AM


Leah: "Are you serious? She's 12. She doesn't know what she believes. When I was 12 I was "pro-life" too."

When I was 12 I had a pretty clear idea of my stance on pro-life completely independently of my parents (we didnt discuss those things.) I didnt have the information, just the nascent philosophy, but I most definitely held the belief. Contrary to what you may think, many children consider deeper issues all the time. I used to discuss the morality of homosexuality with my friend in 5th grade. I frequently debated the logic of a "finite universe" and the possibility of infinite iterations of universes. Of course, now that Im older and I realize that your cant really debate physics from a philosophical point of view, or at least that it is frustratingly fruitless, I dont really go into those concepts as much. I dont know this 12 year old's point of view, but you would be wise not to immediately judge her viewpoints necessarily as even largely influenced by her mother's stance.

And you are right. If she were pro-choice, Id be pissed. Mainly because her ideas are logically flawed and inconsistent with the (mostly)universally accepted beliefs about humanity.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:27 AM


"@Jasper: I'm sure she does. I've been stunted in the maturity area since I was 10. *shrugs*"

I didn't mean to cruel Rae, you're very intelligent and bright, moreso than I. I'm just saying....you told you were pro-life now you're saying you've always been pro-choice....

Posted by: Jasper at February 13, 2009 2:51 AM


I was very impressed with this young girl’s video. She seems bright and charismatic!
Here is what I think:

1) This girl deserves kudos for an excellent speech. I absolutely believe has thought about the issue and genuinely believes in her position.

2) There is a good chance she will change her mind on this issue. That doesn’t mean her arguments don’t rise or fall on their merits, or that she doesn’t know her own mind. But when you get older and start worrying about an unwanted pregnancy and start thinking about the impact on an unwanted pregnancy will have on your life, it reminds you that there is a WOMAN involved in any abortion too, that she has rights and interests and health issues and goals that matter too. The question is whose interests are more important – that of the zygote or fetus or that of the woman? In my late teens, it became obvious. I side with the woman.

3) The issue of parental consent has been raised in this thread. I happen to oppose laws mandating parental consent and I oppose laws mandating that parents be informed, which I think often amounts to the same thing. I also happen to believe that a 12-year-old is not of ideal maturity or life experience to make the decision to abort by herself. How do I reconcile those two positions? Well, I think that a pregnant 12 year old is never an ideal situation; it’s a terrible situation. And unfortunately, the 12 year old, despite her lack of maturity and experience, is in a better position than anyone else to make a decision that will affect the rest of HER life. I imagine myself at that age and I simply cannot cope with the idea of my parents deciding that I should have an abortion or deciding that I should go with the pregnancy. It is simply not a decision one human being can make for another. (That having been said, I would hope that parents would always encourage their daughters – and sons – to come to them for support and counsel if they find that they have created an unborn life

Posted by: Pro-choicer at February 13, 2009 8:23 AM


@Jasper: Maturity generally has nothing to do with intelligence. I've known some very mature people who weren't the best academic performers and I've known some very immature people who were very bright.

That said- I'm pretty sure several months ago I admitted that I wasn't really pro-life and that I said I was to make Bobby and MK happy because I figured that if I called myself "pro-life" I could induce cognitive dissonance and eventually start believing what I considered myself.

It didn't work.

Posted by: Rae at February 13, 2009 8:45 AM


Well, I think that a pregnant 12 year old is never an ideal situation; it’s a terrible situation. And unfortunately, the 12 year old, despite her lack of maturity and experience, is in a better position than anyone else to make a decision that will affect the rest of HER life.

I do not believe a 12 year old has the understanding and the ability to comprehend the risks and the magnitude of the effect an abortion will have on her in the future.

Abortion is not a natural biological event for a young girl's body to experience (or for any women's for that matter). However, her body IS designed for pregnancy, even though she is very young and there are risks.

Abortion prior to a first full term pregnancy astronomically raises her risk of breast cancer. Even women's groups are now getting on board about this.

And abortion can significantly impact her ability to have children in the future. A young girl's cervix is significantly underdeveloped and does not tolerate attack by sexually transmitted viruses nor the harshness of being forced open by an abortionist.

To my mind no 12 year old is capable of understanding the consequences of an abortion. This is not just an opinion, it is proved by brain research which now demonstrates that the portion of the brain which deals with this kind of reasoning, the frontal lobe, is not fully developed and functioning until the very late teens or early twenties. The frontal lobe in a young teen responds with impulsive reaction rather than a logical critical response.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 8:53 AM


If a woman’s body is designed for pregnancy, it sure isn’t designed very well, considering all the symptoms, the pain, the after-effects, and the risks of permanent disability and death.
Also, the scientific consensus is that there is no significant association between first-term abortion and breast cancer. The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in the first term. (Look up the wikipedia article and linked sources on the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis.)
That having been said, I agree a 12 year old is rarely going to be as well equipped intellectually or emotionally to make a decision. A 12 year old is generally going to be less able than an adult to comprehend the long term consequences of abortion – or the long term consequences of pregnancy.
But I still think the 12 year old herself is in the best position to know – better than the State – whether she can trust her parents. And I think the 12 year old is also in the best position to know whether an abortion or continued pregnancy is the right decision for her.

This is especially true considering that many parents will be more concerned about the potential baby than about the girl herself. In other words, this isn't similar to a routine health decision in which we can presume that the parents will be focused on the girl's best interest.

Posted by: Pro-choicer at February 13, 2009 9:48 AM


Pro-choicer,

The same argument could be made about any surgery involving a 12-year old. Certainly you would argue that an individual has the best ability to decide what is appropriate for themself correct? Why does this change when it every other minor surgery right down to pierced ears? You could argue that the parents are tainted again because it is not THEIR body, but that they have specific interests for their child.

Take for example my son. He is almost 4 years old and he is on growth hormone to correct a deficiency. The method of adminstering the hormone is through a small shot on the leg or butt. He hates it, of course. If he made the decision, he would not have the shots. However, in ten years, he will be a dwarf without the shots. It is my job, as difficult as it is, to best attempt to weigh the options for my son, because it may be that in ten years that he will regret missing the opportunity to prevent that condition. The same argument could be applied to vaccines. However, you could argue that I have a personal vested interest in my son's growth, and by that argue that my son is in the best interest to decide about his shots. Why is that absurd? He does not understand the ramifications of his actions. The same is true of a 12 year old when it comes to abortion. A 12 year is likely to not truly understand the depth of what is occuring, even if she happens to be a contemplative 12 year old. This is why she has parents in the first place. If she is capable of making this big of a choice on her own, the choice of life or death, then she would be capable of making any choices on her own.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 10:07 AM


Oliver agreed.

Pro-choicer: I'm sorry we just don't agree on this. There is absolutely NO other medical procedure that a child would be able to give consent to. So why abortion?

as for the ABC link it's there and we will be seeing more of it in the future:

"Teenagers less than age 18 who have abortions between 9 and 24 weeks have an 800% increased risk or a relative risk of 9.0 according to the NCI commissioned study, Daling et al. 1994. This team found a relative risk of infinity among teenagers procuring abortions when they also had a family history of breast cancer. This was because all women in her study who had a family history and an abortion at age 18 or younger developed breast cancer by the age of 45."

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 10:19 AM


TSTL,

That is very interesting, but remember that when there is a correlation, there is the possibility of a third factor causing both aspects. Of course, what could cause breast cancer and the tendency to abort, I have no idea. Maybe feminists are galvanized by a family history of breast cancer and then are therefore more likely to have abortions to prove their feminism? I have no idea. It is worth considering that there could be another outside factor though. Proving the correlation is just the first step in establishing causality. Next the other possible explanations must be eliminated.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 10:28 AM


Abortion prior to a first full term pregnancy astronomically raises her risk of breast cancer. Even women's groups are now getting on board about this.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 8:53 AM

Okay toostunned, afew things yyou are going to have to defend/clarify here if we are going to put any value on what you've said:

1. What excatly do you mean by "astronomically".
2. How does the abortion affect her risk of breast cancer. Is it simply that it means her first pregnancy is later? At 12 years old she still has lots of years left before she reaches the average age for first pregnancy and has average associated risk of breast cancer.
3. What women's groups? Please provide a reference for this statement.

Without this, your claims carry no weight.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 10:29 AM


"Teenagers less than age 18 who have abortions between 9 and 24 weeks have an 800% increased risk or a relative risk of 9.0 according to the NCI commissioned study, Daling et al. 1994. This team found a relative risk of infinity among teenagers procuring abortions when they also had a family history of breast cancer. This was because all women in her study who had a family history and an abortion at age 18 or younger developed breast cancer by the age of 45."

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 10:19 AM

Got anything from a researcher who is NOT a pro-life advocate as well?

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 10:37 AM


Oliver my understanding is that researchers use 6 criteria to establish causal relationship:

1. exposure must precede the disease

2. most studies must show an association

3. there must be significantly significant studies involved

4. the must be a biological explanation or basis

5. there must be a dose affect - that is the more exposure the more risk

6. there must be a relative risk factor of 3.0

The abortion breast cancer link has met each of these criteria.

Unfortunately, feminists and proaborts have set the bar very high stating that there must be an absolute proof link. This is not possible to do.
We haven't even done this with lung cancer and smoking yet its a commonly held medical view that smoking causes lung cancer.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 10:55 AM


Asitis: "Got anything from a researcher who is NOT a pro-life advocate as well?"

Watch the Ad Hominems Asitis. Motive is meaningless if the study is conducted properly. That should be your question. Otherwise I could simply discount all the studies done by Democrats as biased. Hell, I could claim that someone who is defending themself in court is "biased" and therefore we cant trust his/her defense. Thats why Ad Hominems get us into trouble.


Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 10:56 AM


sorry number 3 should read " statistically significant studies" Yikes!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 10:58 AM


It is very interesting, but remember that when there is a correlation, there is the possibility of a third factor causing both aspect
Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 10:28 AM

It is well-established that with age of first birth and the age of menarche are factors in a woman's risk for breast cancer. The older a woman is at first birth, the greater her risk. The younger she is at menarche, the great the risk.

Perhaps age at menarche is a "third factor" you are suggesting. We know it affects breast cancer risk. Would the age at which a girl starts menstruating affect her likelihood to have an abortion as well? I'll see if I can find anything on this. But I'm thinking it possibily could........

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 10:59 AM


"Motive is meaningless if the study is conducted properly. That should be your question.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 10:56 AM

And that IS the question!

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:02 AM


Oliver: thank you.

I do have to leave the bb now. Might be back later on.

I did see a video on another site in which a breast cancer doctor indicated that she began having patients fill out detail medical history forms when they came in to her office. She began to recognize that many many of her bc patients had had abortions 7 to 9 years earlier. This came as quite a shock to her. But when she approached another more established doctor to help her publish her findings she was told by the doctor that she "chose" not to speak about this possible link. She CHOSE!
Yes, very interesting indeed!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 11:03 AM


In addition to the credibility issues of the researcher, I think it is significant that the research cited by Too Stunned applies to abortions that occur between 9 and 24 weeks. The overwhelming majority of abortions in the U.S. occur within 12 weeks.

I do make a distinction between abortion and other medical procedures. Generally, I have no problem with the presumption that parents can be trusted to safeguard the best interests of the child. But when it comes to abortion, a lot of people DON'T put the best interests of the girl or woman first. Many, many, many parents are ideologically opposed to abortion because they believe the rights of the fetus should trump all. Many, many, many parents would see their first duty as protecting the fetus rather than their daughter. Please note that I am NOT saying that abortion is always the right thing for every girl; what concerns me is that so many parents are NOT going to be dealing with the issue in terms of the DAUGHTER'S long-term interests, whatever those may be.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 13, 2009 11:06 AM


Abortion prior to a first full term pregnancy astronomically raises her risk of breast cancer. Even women's groups are now getting on board about this.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 8:53 AM

Okay toostunned, afew things yyou are going to have to defend/clarify here if we are going to put any value on what you've said:

1. What excatly do you mean by "astronomically".
2. How does the abortion affect her risk of breast cancer. Is it simply that it means her first pregnancy is later? At 12 years old she still has lots of years left before she reaches the average age for first pregnancy and has average associated risk of breast cancer.
3. What women's groups? Please provide a reference for this statement.

Without this, your claims carry no weight.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 10:29 AM

Funny how toostunned can't provide this information for us.

Empty claims......

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:07 AM


Asitis: "And that IS the question!"

No, you asked if she had a study not done by a person who was a pro-life advocate. This should not and does not factor into the equation.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:08 AM


Got anything from a researcher who is NOT a pro-life advocate as well?
Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 10:37 AM


Hardly a fair question. People are either pro-choice or pro-life, a pro-life researcher you will automatically discount because of their position. A pro-choice opinion will automatically be accepted because of your position. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Kristen at February 13, 2009 11:08 AM


Pro-choicers: "I do make a distinction between abortion and other medical procedures. Generally, I have no problem with the presumption that parents can be trusted to safeguard the best interests of the child. But when it comes to abortion, a lot of people DON'T put the best interests of the girl or woman first. Many, many, many parents are ideologically opposed to abortion because they believe the rights of the fetus should trump all. Many, many, many parents would see their first duty as protecting the fetus rather than their daughter. Please note that I am NOT saying that abortion is always the right thing for every girl; what concerns me is that so many parents are NOT going to be dealing with the issue in terms of the DAUGHTER'S long-term interests, whatever those may be. "

Why do you not have that problem? What about vaccines? What about growth hormone? What about surgeries to correct deformities? What about pierced ears and tatoos? All of these STILL require consent and they fall along the same ethical lines. The bottom line is that a 12 year old is not capable of truly understanding the ramifications of the result, regardless of what the alternative is. The parents are the voice of reason for their child, and even if they have ethics and wish to not destroy a human life, they still have the superior viewpoint on the issue, just as is the case for every other "personal" surgeries a child could undergo.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:12 AM


Asitis: "And that IS the question!"

No, you asked if she had a study not done by a person who was a pro-life advocate. This should not and does not factor into the equation.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:08 AM

Oh please Oliver!!!! Toostunned is the one who is constantly complaining that science is being compromised by bias. And yet the only reference she offers up for this breast cancer link comes from a pro-life advocate. She's done it before on other issues... with David Reardon and Paul Cameron. It's ridiculous!

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:14 AM


I should note that I ALSO don't believe that parental consent should be required when a minor seeks pre-natal care.

It is an ugly fact of life that pregnancy FORCES a young person into a position of having to act like an adult. If a 12-year-old is incapable of making a decision on abortion vs. having-the-baby, then she is also incapable of being an adequate mother. Yet it appears that TooStunned would be willing to put the girl in that position.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 13, 2009 11:16 AM


Asitis: "Oh please Oliver!!!! Toostunned is the one who is constantly complaining that science is being compromised by bias."

So because she does it, it makes it okay for you to do it?

Besides there is a difference between the claim that science is POSSIBLY compromised by bias in general, because I am sure that it is frequently, and the claim that a specific example is NECESSARILY biased by the scientist's viewpoint.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:18 AM


Hardly a fair question. People are either pro-choice or pro-life, a pro-life researcher you will automatically discount because of their position. A pro-choice opinion will automatically be accepted because of your position. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Kristen at February 13, 2009 11:08 AM

Kristen I will agree that people tend to be pro-life or pro-choice. A researcher shouldn't let this influence their research.

Now, if the researcher happens to be an ADVOCATE for either cause, that might not be the case.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:19 AM


The overwhelming majority of abortions in the U.S. occur within 12 weeks.

is this NOT between 9 and 24 weeks, Pro-choicer? It is by my math. I'm betting most 12 year old girls don't know they are pregnant until 6,7 or 8 weeks anyway, given the irregularity of young girls menses and the tendency of young women to deny their pregnant state.

I did not say that every woman who has an abortion will go on to develop breast cancer, nor is that what the researchers are saying. But there is a risk and it is definable and it is significant.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 11:20 AM


Pro-choicer: "Is also incapable of being an adequate mother. Yet it appears that TooStunned would be willing to put the girl in that position."

I find it interesting that you jump to abortion if a mother is inadequate. Can you imagine what would happen if CPS did the same to infants?

"Well this mother is inadequate, we should kill the children."

Let me make this clear for you pro-choicer. Abortion has nothing at all to do with preventing motherhood. It has only to do with preventing the mostly temporary physical changes associated with pregnancy and birth.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:20 AM


thanks Kristen! :-D

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 11:21 AM


Asitis: "Now, if the researcher happens to be an ADVOCATE for either cause, that might not be the case."

Might is the operative phrase. So how do we determine whether or not the study is biased? We look at the structure of the study. If the study is improperly done, then the study is unacceptable, whether or not it is biased. So in truth, bias is really not important to the validity of the study.

Besides, wouldnt you argue that a defendent in a murder case is an ADVOCATE for their own innocence? Does it necessarily mean that their defense is biased and therefore can be discounted? I hope not, otherwise everyone will go to jail once accused.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:23 AM


Asitis: "Oh please Oliver!!!! Toostunned is the one who is constantly complaining that science is being compromised by bias."

So because she does it, it makes it okay for you to do it?
Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:18 AM

Oliver, I don't actually make the blanket claim that science is being compromised. But I do recognize that someone who is a real advocate for a cause could compromise their research by either having flawed methodolgy or making invalid conclusions.

And I do not go around citing research done by the likes of Paul Cameron and David Reardon. That's actually worse than the times she refuses to name her source.

It's just ridiculous.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:26 AM


Pro-choicer: "Is also incapable of being an adequate mother. Yet it appears that TooStunned would be willing to put the girl in that position."

I'm asking the girl to have the child. I'm not asking her to raise the child. Pregnancy is a temporary state. It passes. Surely you have heard of a d o p t i o n.
Or is that a dirty word to prochoicers? Is death the only solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. I think not!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 11:26 AM


Asitis: "It's just ridiculous."

Okay, you say that their methodology is flawed. Where is your evidence for this? I dont mean for you to go google some evidence, because post-rationalizing your belief is not the question. You have already at this point judged that the studies were improperly done. What evidence have you already seen in the past do you have to support this? I dont honestly know who these two people are.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:28 AM


TSTL: "Surely you have heard of a d o p t i o n.
Or is that a dirty word to prochoicers?"

It is a dirty word because it inconveniently removes their most emotional argument - "What if the mother isnt a good mother and she cant raise her child properly!?!"

Unofrtunately for the choicers, appeals to emotion really have no place in any discussion. Save that for the propaganda.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:33 AM


I did NOT immediately jump to abortion as the solution when a mother is inadequate. I never said or thought anything remotely resembling that.

What I am saying is that IF YOU think that a 12 year old is so wholly incompetent that she shouldn't even be allowed to make her own choices about whether to bear a child, then it doesn't make sense for YOU to put her in a position of motherhood.

There is nothing I have said that would ever lead to the conclusion that I object to adoption as one possible solution for an unwanted pregnancy. (I DO object to forcing that option onto a girl after she has been forced to give birth against her will. And I DO note that many kinds of babies will have difficulty finding an adoptive home, particularly if there are health problems.)

Hope that makes my position clearer. I have to run out the door right now, but will check back in later.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 13, 2009 11:37 AM


Pro-choicer: The overwhelming majority of abortions in the U.S. occur within 12 weeks.

is this NOT between 9 and 24 weeks, Pro-choicer? It is by my math.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 11:20 AM

Sorry toostunned but your understanding of the statistics, "your math", is wrong: 90% of abortions occur within 12 weeks. 36 % occur between 9 and 24 weeks. The portion that IS the same between what you are talking about (9 to 24 weeks) and what Pro-choicer is talking about (

Not the same.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:39 AM


Whoops, that got truncated. Here it is:

Sorry toostunned but your understanding of the statistics, "your math", is wrong: 90% of abortions occur within 12 weeks. 36 % occur between 9 and 24 weeks. The portion that IS the same between what you are talking about (9 to 24 weeks) and what Pro-choicer is talking about
(

Not the same.


Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:41 AM


What I am saying is that IF YOU think that a 12 year old is so wholly incompetent that she shouldn't even be allowed to make her own choices about whether to bear a child, then it doesn't make sense for YOU to put her in a position of motherhood.

as I stated earlier - the condition of motherhood in it's active sense can be and likely should be temporary for a 12 year old!
She gives birth to the innocent baby and it is placed for adoption.
How is killing the baby a solution? Why should it be the solution?

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 11:42 AM


Hmmm.... odd.... maybe it deosen't like the less than following a parathesis. I'll use text and try again:


Sorry toostunned but your understanding of the statistics, "your math", is wrong: 90% of abortions occur within 12 weeks. 36 % occur between 9 and 24 weeks. The portion that IS the same between what you are talking about (9 to 24 weeks) and what Pro-choicer is talking about
( less than 12 weeks). The portion that IS the same is 9-12 weeks which accounts for 27%.

Not the same. You stand corrected.

Not the same.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:41 AM

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:45 AM


Prochoicer: "I did NOT immediately jump to abortion as the solution when a mother is inadequate. I never said or thought anything remotely resembling that.

What I am saying is that IF YOU think that a 12 year old is so wholly incompetent that she shouldn't even be allowed to make her own choices about whether to bear a child, then it doesn't make sense for YOU to put her in a position of motherhood. "

These two statements are contradictory. You said that you did not jump to abortion as the only answer, yet you claimed that by disallowing an abortion, we are necessarily forcing motherhood (the act of motherhood not the function of giving birth, as implied by "inadequecy") on the girl. The necessary point is the key aspect of your argument. By claiming it as a necessary consequence, you are exlcuding the other options from consideration, IE adoption. So, per your post and actually what you just said again, its either abortion or motherhood. Pretty simple logic Pro-choicer.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:48 AM


Okay, you say that their methodology is flawed. Where is your evidence for this? I dont mean for you to go google some evidence, because post-rationalizing your belief is not the question. You have already at this point judged that the studies were improperly done. What evidence have you already seen in the past do you have to support this? I dont honestly know who these two people are.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:28 AM

Oliver, I had honestly never heard of these people either before toostunned how cited their research. I noticed the flaws in their research as soon as I saw it in her comments. And no, it wasn't simply because what they were concluding ran counter to my beliefs. So I went and did some digging and lo and behold I was bang on.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 11:51 AM


Asitis, okay, mind to show me so I can know in the future?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:53 AM


"Maybe feminists are galvanized by a family history of breast cancer and then are therefore more likely to have abortions to prove their feminism?"
Err...I highly doubt that anyone has an abortion to 'prove' something. Women have abortions because of many reasons, the main being they do not want to have a baby, or feel they cannot have a baby, etc. Maybe a rare woman has an abortion to prove a point. That's a weird extreme, sort of like pro-lifers who will bomb an abortion clinic. I'm just saying...

"Surely you have heard of a d o p t i o n." Adoption is a beautiful thing. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone (yes, even us pro choicers*) who doesn't find it selfless and the greatest give you can give. But it's also the most difficult thing a woman will have to do. Asking a 12-year-old who, although she may be exceptionally mature for her age, isn't even through puberty and just can't be expected to make a tough decision the way a full-grown adult can, to give up her baby is even more challenging. Especially considering the dangers carrying a pregnancy will do to her young body.
*Speaking as just ONE prochoicer, I can say that adoption is a wonderful option and a wonderful solution if you view an unplanned pregnancy as a problem. I would never call it a dirty word. BUT I could also never ask a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to full term to do it citing adoption as the answer. It's just not the answer for everyone who faces this dilemma. But it's an amazing thing if a woman can carry to full term and then give her baby to a couple who wants it!

Posted by: AM at February 13, 2009 11:58 AM


Oliver I didn't save any of it. If you want to dig through the posts and find the exchanges you can. It would be sometime in November I believe for Cameron, and Reardon was more recent. And apparently I am not the first one on this blog to call him out.

Or you could google them and start from there to find some of their "research" and other information about them. It was an eye-opener for me. Let me know what you think!

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 12:02 PM


Asitis,

Alright, just sum up the main points for me then. I can check the sources later.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:10 PM


AM: "Err...I highly doubt that anyone has an abortion to 'prove' something. Women have abortions because of many reasons, the main being they do not want to have a baby, or feel they cannot have a baby, etc. Maybe a rare woman has an abortion to prove a point. That's a weird extreme, sort of like pro-lifers who will bomb an abortion clinic. I'm just saying..."

I was just speaking hypothetically. Read the post more carefully.

AM: "Adoption is a beautiful thing. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone (yes, even us pro choicers*) who doesn't find it selfless and the greatest give you can give. But it's also the most difficult thing a woman will have to do. Asking a 12-year-old who, although she may be exceptionally mature for her age, isn't even through puberty and just can't be expected to make a tough decision the way a full-grown adult can, to give up her baby is even more challenging. Especially considering the dangers carrying a pregnancy will do to her young body.
*Speaking as just ONE prochoicer, I can say that adoption is a wonderful option and a wonderful solution if you view an unplanned pregnancy as a problem. I would never call it a dirty word. BUT I could also never ask a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to full term to do it citing adoption as the answer. It's just not the answer for everyone who faces this dilemma. But it's an amazing thing if a woman can carry to full term and then give her baby to a couple who wants it! "

The baby is "her" baby in the sense that she is in charge, not in the sense that it is her property. The baby is another human being, and even if adoption is not pleasant for the mother, death is by no means an acceptable alternative.

Unfortunately a pregnant mother is responsible for her child until she can find an alternative. The pro-choice side holds the inconsistent belief that death is an acceptable alternative to care when it comes to pregnancy but not an acceptable alternative to care when it comes to other forms of parenthood. The bottom line is that pregnancy is a form of providing nutrients and shelter to a child. The removal of the child from the womb to the point of the child's detriment is the equal of child abuse via neglect. To say that you wouldnt force a pregnancy on someone with adoption as the answer is kin to saying that you would not force a mother to give up her newborn, even though she doesnt want to pay to feed him/her. Would it be acceptable for a mother to say "I dont want to actually feed my newborn, but I just couldnt bear letting someone else have her, so I am going to just sit her on the back porch until she dies from lack of nutrients and shelter."

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:18 PM


What main points? What I saw that was flawed? What their research was????

Just look them up and you'll quickly see for yourself. And if you want to see what I had to say about them, go back and find my comments. I'm not going to rehash them for you and I can't recall it all exactly.

I do recall toostunned quoted studies done by Cameron on gay caregivers and pedophilia. I beleive she claimed the finding were suppressed because they were "politically incorrect" in that they were unfavorable to gays. But in actuality, the findings weren't recognized because the methodolgy was unsound and he jumped to invalid conclusions. He's actually been booted off his discipline's societies in both Canada and the U.S. for being unscientific. As for Reardon, I recognized the same in his research and it turns out he doesn't even have a real PhD, the "institute" he works for is himself and his research is published by his own publishing company. He too is not recognized by his peers.

Check it out..............

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 12:18 PM


OMG Oliver, you have got me thinking back a couple months ago to when toostunned was Patricia and she tried to tell me all she knew about an evil land called Sweden!! That was too funny. My Scandanavian friends all had a good laugh over that!

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 12:25 PM


Asitis: "What main points? What I saw that was flawed? What their research was????

Just look them up and you'll quickly see for yourself. And if you want to see what I had to say about them, go back and find my comments. I'm not going to rehash them for you and I can't recall it all exactly."

Why not? Are you trying to show the same maturity that our friend Josephine showed? Or do you really not remember why you think these two men are such bad researchers.

I personally do not care if he has a PhD or not. Ive taught PhDs befores who did not inspire me very much. I dont care if he is recognized either. Do you really not see that these are all personal attacks again? I want to know why you believe specifically his methodology is flawed. Keep in mind that you are the one advancing the point, I just want to know why. Hell I may even agree with you if you could sum it up for me here. Personally, I dont think you know, and I think you are just working off the perception that this particular research is flawed.

(By the way, throwing Cameron's name around doesnt help your points too much. Cameron is one of the poorest debators Ive run into on this site. His posts are so absurd I theorize that he is just a prankster trying to post absurd things. If not, I feel bad for the guy.)

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:26 PM


Is Cameron on this blog Paul Cameron? How how does my throwing his name around not help my point? My point is he's an idiot (at best). Better go back and read what I wrote.

Look, I'm not pulling anything. I just don't feel like going back and finding the research that was cited and rewriting what I thought and what I found out. Go back and find it yourself if you care to. It's all there somewhere between November and January.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 12:37 PM


Oh you guys are talking about two different Camerons. Oliver is talking about a poster to this blog (I think he was posting just before asitis came) named Cameron who was a pro-choicer. I think the Cameron asitis is talking about is Paul Cameron, a pro-life researcher (though some may debate that title) sort of along the lines of David Reardon.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 13, 2009 12:41 PM


And Oliver, if a person buys a PhD, they are doing so to appear to be something they are not. If they call themselves an institute, likewise. If they have to pay to publish their works or have them published in a journal, chances are they have been turned down by the respected, peer-reviewed journals. If they get kicked out of their disciplines societies, there's good reason for it.These aren't unfounded personal attacks. Be real.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 12:41 PM


Thansk Bobby. I have no idea why Oliver would make that mistake. He must not have read what i wrote

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 12:43 PM


My bad, I misread what you said. I thought you were name dropping Cameron the poster, not the researcher, as helping you debate TSTL. I misunderstood.

Asitis: "Look, I'm not pulling anything. I just don't feel like going back and finding the research that was cited and rewriting what I thought and what I found out. Go back and find it yourself if you care to. It's all there somewhere between November and January."

See, the very point that you dont know off the top of your head what, even in vague terms, about his research you were bothered by goes to show how misplaced your criticism is right now. You shouldnt have to look it up. If you do, then you dont actually know why his research is flawed and you are working off a vague impression that you received a while ago. You have no grounds to say that their research is flawed.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:45 PM


Asitis: "And Oliver, if a person buys a PhD, they are doing so to appear to be something they are not. If they call themselves an institute, likewise. If they have to pay to publish their works or have them published in a journal, chances are they have been turned down by the respected, peer-reviewed journals. If they get kicked out of their disciplines societies, there's good reason for it.These aren't unfounded personal attacks. Be real. "

You really dont get it do you? I dont care if the guy is a homeless crack head. If his research has no flaws, then his research is credible.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:47 PM


Also, it doesnt matter if a personal attack is founded or unfounded, a personal attack is an Ad Hominem, period, end of story. Of course this may be hard for someone like you who finds it worth while to claim that the only thing that I have achieved is getting my wife pregnant. It may be true, but what does it have to do with my arguments?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:49 PM


Oliver, what are you talking about??? I just told you what it was "vaguely" about. For Pete's sake.... why are you so worried about looking it yourself? Afraid of finding out just how bright and right I am?

And BTW, if you "misread" about Cameron, you really aren't reading what I'm writing anyway.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 12:49 PM


"It would be sometime in November I believe for Cameron"

I misintepreted this original phrase as Cameron was the one making the argument in November. Thats what got me confused.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:51 PM


Asitis: "Oliver, what are you talking about??? I just told you what it was "vaguely" about. For Pete's sake.... why are you so worried about looking it yourself? Afraid of finding out just how bright and right I am? "

First of all, you havent even vaguely claimed the problem with the study. You have incidentally recalled specifically several negative things about the researchers' characters, but you have yet to address the research itself. I find it interesting that you are quick to bring up the personal attack, yet you have to defer me to a random thread to find the information you quoted attacking the research.

Second of all, I shouldnt have to go look up your defense. You are the one advancing the point that these men have irreputable research. It is up to you to defend your point of view.

Finally, I have no clue what thread it is. You said it happened "recently" and also "sometime in November." You might as well ask me to just search every post so I can find out how "bright and right" you are. Why not just recap what you are using as your basis for attack? You seem to easily recall the information about his education.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:56 PM


"It would be sometime in November I believe for Cameron"

I misintepreted this original phrase as Cameron was the one making the argument in November. Thats what got me confused.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:51 PM

Well, yeh maybe that would get you confused.... if that was the only comment I mentioned him in!

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 12:58 PM


Second of all, I shouldnt have to go look up your defense. You are the one advancing the point that these men have irreputable research. It is up to you to defend your point of view.

Finally, I have no clue what thread it is. You said it happened "recently" and also "sometime in November." You might as well ask me to just search every post so I can find out how "bright and right" you are. Why not just recap what you are using as your basis for attack? You seem to easily recall the information about his education.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:56 PM

For f***'s sake Oliver. Are you always this obstinate? You could have found it yourself by now, I'm sure.

I have already defended myself. In Novemeber (Cameron) and in another more recent post (Reardon). One of us has to search through the posts. Go find it then. Prove me not bright and right, oh King of Logic!

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:02 PM


Asitis: "I have already defended myself. In Novemeber (Cameron) and in another more recent post (Reardon). One of us has to search through the posts. Go find it then. Prove me not bright and right, oh King of Logic! "

Care to explain why you so easily recall the personal attacks but not one single attack on the research?

And its your responsiblity to look up the information and like hell am I going to search every post in November. You shouldnt even have to look up what you beleive Asitis. The bottom line is that because you cant even recall a basic, vague idea of what was so wrong about the research, you have zero ground to stand on with your critique. TSTL, keep posting those studies, Asitis obviously doesnt know what bugs her about the research other than all the minute details of the life of the researcher himself.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:06 PM


Also, it doesnt matter if a personal attack is founded or unfounded, a personal attack is an Ad Hominem, period, end of story. Of course this may be hard for someone like you who finds it worth while to claim that the only thing that I have achieved is getting my wife pregnant. It may be true, but what does it have to do with my arguments?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 12:49

That's pretty freakin' hilarious Oliver, you chastising me for personal attacks "founded or unfounded" after the crap you pulled last night on Josephine.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:11 PM


Asitis: "That's pretty freakin' hilarious Oliver, you chastising me for personal attacks "founded or unfounded" after the crap you pulled last night on Josephine."

The difference is that the attacks on Josephine were relevant to her argument. She claimed that her experience as a medic gave her superior knowledge than the average person and nurse. She was boasting about her experience, so I questioned her on it. Turns out I was right for the most part. Her experience had nothing to do with embryonic development.

Also, just so you know, it doesnt matter if I use ad hominems, I am still right in arguing that they are flawed argumentive techniques.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:17 PM


And its your responsiblity to look up the information and like hell am I going to search every post in November. You shouldnt even have to look up what you beleive Asitis. The bottom line is that because you cant even recall a basic, vague idea of what was so wrong about the research, you have zero ground to stand on with your critique. TSTL, keep posting those studies, Asitis obviously doesnt know what bugs her about the research other than all the minute details of the life of the researcher himself.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:06 PM

Oh you don't have to bother encouraging her Oliver - she'll keep citing them anyway.

Look, I do recall that in both cases their research findings were not supported by their results: There were corelations, but nothing to support the conlsions they drew. Also, I recall there being improper controls and sample size issues in Cameron's. There might have been more too, but can't say for certain without rereading the studies.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you know full well the problems with their reserach and may have even found my comments by now Oliver.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:17 PM


Alright, now I can go investigate that. Was that so hard? Improper controls and sample sizes for Paul Cameron and correlations not supporting the conclusions in Rearden.

And no, I did not search the probably thousands of posts in November to find your original post.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:20 PM


She was boasting about her experience, so I questioned her on it. Turns out I was right for the most part. Her experience had nothing to do with embryonic development.

Also, just so you know, it doesnt matter if I use ad hominems, I am still right in arguing that they are flawed argumentive techniques.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:17 PM

Oliver you were questioning her about lots of stuff that had nothing to do with her experience with embryonic development as wellas insulting her intelligence, academic abilities, integrity, achievments. Frankly, you came off badly.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:22 PM


Improper controls and sample sizes for Paul Cameron and correlations not supporting the conclusions in Rearden.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:20 PM

Oliver, I said there were corelations, but the results did not support the conclusions that were drawn. And I believe thsi applied to both Reardon and Cameron.

As for the exact studies we were looking at, you'll have to find those int he original posts. If you haven't already ;)

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:27 PM


Asitis: "Oliver you were questioning her about lots of stuff that had nothing to do with her experience with embryonic development as wellas insulting her intelligence, academic abilities, integrity, achievments. Frankly, you came off badly. "

All of those things were relevant. She was throwing bravado around and claiming to be an authority because of those experiences. I questioned her on her integrity because her story sounded fishy. Turns out I was right and for the most part she had exagerated her experiences. Turns out also that she completely contradicted herself multiple times in her thread and the original one she kept going on and on about without actually quoting. I may have pursued the points a bit too harshly, but they were relevant to her argument that her experience gave her credibility. My life however was and is not at all relevant to my arguments. I let me words do the talking so to speak. Hence, you little jab about not be a "real" achiever because I have a family instead of a LPN was completely unfounded. I wonder who came off badly in actuality.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:28 PM


Look Ollie.... Josephine is 21 years old. For a 21 year old she has achieved and experienced a lot. It really is remarkable. And it shows her maturity for a 21 year old. You may not recognie this because you don't agree with her arguments, but it's there.

You were chastising her about what school she might be going to, whether she'd ever be considered for a residency, how she would ever do well on the MCAT's. And she set you straight on all didn't she? I'm sorry.... who came off badly? Me, because I made one suggestion that you hadn't achieved nearly as much at her yound age? Or you for attacking her?

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:37 PM


Well the only things I have found so far about Cameron and Reardon are that Cameron's homosexuality research has some questionable processes and that Reardon's research was ultimately inconclusive, yet still introduces the point of doubt that would require further, more controlled research to establish. I did not find anything dissing Cameron about abortion research, but Im not sure if TSTL used him for that purpose. Regardless, you definitely cant dismiss what Reardon accomplished as outright lies. They are supported by research - there just needs to be further research to clarify. This is true of almost every study released everywhere.

I know my wife has several studies that back up the Reardon study, even one by a pro-choice scientist based out of New Zealand, but she'll have to come on later to point that out.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:39 PM


Asitis: "You were chastising her about what school she might be going to, whether she'd ever be considered for a residency, how she would ever do well on the MCAT's. And she set you straight on all didn't she?"

No actually, she did not set that straight. All of those things are relevant to her supposedly superior knowledge of the human body and birth control. She is the one who claimed that she was a "pre-med student and a medic" so that she would know sufficiently enough about the human body to be a part of the argument.

Asitis: "I'm sorry.... who came off badly? Me, because I made one suggestion that you hadn't achieved nearly as much at her yound age? Or you for attacking her?"

Hmm, considering that what I was attacking was entirely relevant to Josephine's claims, and considering that your one attack was impugning me for starting a family before finishing college, Im going to go with you.

By the way, Im 24 and my wife is 22. Josephine has no excuse to act like she does.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:43 PM


Josephine has no excuse to act like she does? How does she act that needs to be excused?

You are sugar-coating your treatment of her last night. It was appalling. My comment to you was just the kick in the gut you needed.

And by the way, I'm 44 and way more mature than you. Na na boo boo.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:47 PM


I don't know if Cameron does abortion research. What I was referring to were studies on homosexuality. That seems to be his beef.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:48 PM


Oliver, I'm not saying Reardon's reaserach is "outright lies". What I am saying is his conclusions are unsubstantiated.

Likewise, I am not saying he is lying that he has a PhD (he bought one), works for an institute (himself) and is published (by himself).

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 1:53 PM


Asitis: "Josephine has no excuse to act like she does? How does she act that needs to be excused?

You are sugar-coating your treatment of her last night. It was appalling. My comment to you was just the kick in the gut you needed."

She needs to excuse her blatant misrepresentation of her experience as a qualifier for her position in the argument regarding embryology. She also needed not to laud her weak experience as better than a nurse's.

Asitis:"And by the way, I'm 44 and way more mature than you. Na na boo boo."

Too bad your years havent given you wisdom.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:56 PM


Interestingly, the National Cancer Institute (a government agency and hardly a biased pro-abortion source during the Bush administration) has a page up stating there is no reliable study showing an association between abortion and breast cancer. The page is from 2003, but I assume this is still their current position since the page is still up:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 13, 2009 1:58 PM


Asitis: "Oliver, I'm not saying Reardon's reaserach is "outright lies". What I am saying is his conclusions are unsubstantiated."

Unforuntately you cannot claim even that Asitis. His studies require more research to back them up fully, but every study does. There is a difference between needing more work to back up a stance and being "unsubstantiated" which is to say that his studies have NO support. His claim was supported by his studies, just not fully. Fortunately, there have been other studies to back up that abortion is linked to depression, by a pro-choicer no less.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:59 PM


I'm betting most 12 year old girls don't know they are pregnant until 6,7 or 8 weeks anyway,


Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 11:20 AM

Heck, I was 23 and didn't know I was pregnant until about 14 weeks. I was SHOCKED! I was watching TV and a diaper commercial came on and I put all my symptoms together. Looking back on it now it was hilarious.

Posted by: Kristen at February 13, 2009 2:01 PM


Too bad your years havent given you wisdom.


Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:56 PM


Hahahahaha! No, I guess I'll never be as old nor wise as you Oliver.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 2:04 PM


Asitis: "Hahahahaha! No, I guess I'll never be as old nor wise as you Oliver."

When did I say I was wise? And who said anything about age being an indicator of wisdom? The 70 year old homeless man on the corner doesnt seem too wise to me.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 2:06 PM


Just to repeat my position, I think that giving up a baby for adoption is a wonderful option for SOME girls. For others, to take away a child she has been forced to bear would only compound the trauma.

On a slightly different point: I do know some mothers who had their babies at 15 and 16 and did a wonderful job raising them, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances. This to me seems to indicate that certainly many older girls ARE mature enought to make decisions about childbirth. Although we have been talking about the more extreme cases of 12 year old children, it is worth noting that the majority of underage pregnancies among older girls.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 13, 2009 2:06 PM


Finally, just to defend myself again as to the accusation that I automatically assume abortion is the best option for an underage girl, let me repeat the following:

I also oppose any requirement that an underage girl obtain parental consent to get pre-natal care.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 13, 2009 2:09 PM


Unforuntately you cannot claim even that Asitis. His studies require more research to back them up fully, but every study does. There is a difference between needing more work to back up a stance and being "unsubstantiated" which is to say that his studies have NO support. His claim was supported by his studies, just not fully. Fortunately, there have been other studies to back up that abortion is linked to depression, by a pro-choicer no less.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:59 PM

Oliver, I not saying "his studies have NO support". I am saying his conclusions are unsubstantiatated. That is, his data does not fully support his conclusions.

If a researcher finds that his data suggests something but,more work is needed to prove it, he writes just that. He doesn't claim he has already proven it

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 2:09 PM


It depends on your definition of "unsubstantiated." If you mean it to be not FULLY proved, then every study sits there Asitis, and my question to you is "why even say this?"

Prochoicer,

You said that if we force a girl to give birth, we are forcing motherhood in the sense of caring for a child also upon the girl. By placing the relationship as a NECESSARY one, you are automatically removing other posibilities, bottom line. You are complicating it more than you need to. Just take back that statement.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 2:21 PM


Heck, I was 23 and didn't know I was pregnant until about 14 weeks. I was SHOCKED! I was watching TV and a diaper commercial came on and I put all my symptoms together. Looking back on it now it was hilarious.

Posted by: Kristen at February 13, 2009 2:01 PM

I think I can out do you on this one - I had a research assistant who was 5 months pregnant (21 weeks!) who did not know she was pregnant. She was 35 and a brilliant Polish scientist that I had the opportunity of working with. But she rarely had periods and often had stomach troubles. It seems unbelievable to me, but there it is.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 2:21 PM


Oliver this is for you. I will publish in several parts:

Thirty years ago when Roe v. Wade was decided, I was a third-year medical student at Georgetown University. The third year is when medical students leave the classroom and go into hospitals to do their clinical rotations. The ruling had an immediate effect on the practice and ethics of medicine. No longer would my obstetrics professor tell his students that his was a unique specialty, that he always had two patients to consider, mother and child. Now only when the mother wanted the child did we treat two patients. When the mother didn't want the child, no consideration would be given to the unborn's humanity. It was no longer a child but a blob of tissue, a "product of conception," a parasitic entity or whatever the mother chose to call "it." For the first time, every doctor in every state could legally kill another human being.

On my pediatric rotation that year, I helped to resuscitate a child who was born four months prematurely crying aloud, struggling to breathe. She was the result of a failed abortion. She was wizened and burned from the hypertonic saline used to try to kill her on the hospital floor just below the nursery. I can still see her clearly in my mind's eye.

One and a half years after Roe v. Wade, when I graduated something else very profound had happened. The Hippocratic Oath we took, that had stood medicine in good stead for twenty-four hundred years, had been changed. The part about refusing to give a woman a pessary to induce an abortion had been deleted.

Ten years after Roe v. Wade I watched my mother fight and lose her battle with breast cancer. Added to her physical torment was her mental anguish at the thought of leaving my youngest brother before he was fully grown.

Twenty years after Roe v. Wade, I was settled into a surgical practice devoted to breast cancer. I found that breast cancer risk was no longer one out of twelve women, as I had learned in medical school, but had increased dramatically to one out of eight. Not only that, but the women with breast cancer were no longer postmenopausal grandmothers, but young thirty-year-old mothers with toddlers. I knew from my own painful experience what they would face.

The Roe v. Wade ruling not only changed the Oath I took at graduation, but also my practice. We all know someone, either personally or through friends and family, who has had breast cancer. Breast cancer is the only major cancer that continues to rise. Most of this increase has occurred in members of my own generation, those women who were twenty-five to thirty-nine when Roe v. Wade was decided.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 2:56 PM


Unforuntately you cannot claim even that Asitis. His studies require more research to back them up fully, but every study does. There is a difference between needing more work to back up a stance and being "unsubstantiated" which is to say that his studies have NO support. His claim was supported by his studies, just not fully.
Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 1:59 PM

Oliver, I not saying "his studies have NO support". I am saying his conclusions are unsubstantiatated. That is, his data does not fully support his conclusions.

If a researcher finds that his data suggests something but,more work is needed to prove it, he writes just that. He doesn't claim he has already proven it

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 2:09 PM

It depends on your definition of "unsubstantiated." If you mean it to be not FULLY proved, then every study sits there Asitis, and my question to you is "why even say this?"
Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 2:21 PM


Oliver, let me try to explain this to you again: When you make a conclusion, it needs to be spported by your results. Example: Your results may show a corelation between two variables, say smoking and obesity. You may find that obesity is directly proportional to smoking. You can conclude that as smoking increases, so to does the incidence of obesity. Your data supports this conclusion. However, you cannot conclude from this relationship alone that smoking causes obesity. You could, however, say that the results suggest that further research is needed/might show that smoking causes obesity.

Reardon and Cameron have made the leap from seeing a corelation between two variables to saying one causes the other without the data to support this.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 2:57 PM


Epidemiological Evidence

Abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer. I see it every day in my practice. Thirty percent of my breast cancer patients who are in their thirties do not have a family history of cancer, but have had an abortion. It is estimated that an additional ten thousand cases of breast cancer occur each year because of abortion.

The abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link) is supported by the published epidemiological studies, the physiology of the breast, and the experimental studies done in mammals. Epidemiological studies overwhelmingly support the ABC link; however, to put them into proper perspective, one must understand why some have referred to epidemiology as a "pseudo-science."

Epidemiology can be defined as the study of disease in large populations. These studies can never be taken as proof positive that any risk found is causal. For example, large studies would probably show unequivocally that more people with lung cancer carry matches in their pockets than those without cancer. This would not mean that matches cause lung cancer, even though large studies were done well, were statistically significant, and were reproducible. Biology has shown that it is the carcinogens in match-lit cigarette smoke which causes lung cancer. Similarly, without the support of the well-known breast physiology and experimental data, the studies documenting an abortion-breast cancer link would be inconclusive.

Let us look at the epidemiology first, and then the supporting data. Epidemiologists have defined five criteria which should be largely satisfied before a risk factor can be considered a potential causal risk.

1. The patient must be exposed to the risk before the cancer develops.

2. There must be similar findings in many studies. One or two studies can never be taken to prove anything. In the case of the ABC link, twenty-eight out of thirty-five worldwide studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies done in the U.S. show a link.

3. There must be statistically significant increases. Scientists need to show with ninety-five percent certainty that their results could have not occurred by chance alone. There are seventeen statistically significant studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer and eight were done in the U.S.

4. There should be a dose effect, that is, the risk should be higher with more exposure. In the case of cigarettes and lung cancer, the more cigarettes one smokes, the greater the risk of lung cancer. In the case of abortion, the longer one is pregnant before the abortion, the higher the risk of breast cancer. This was shown in the 1994 Daling study commissioned by the National Cancer Institute. (1)

5. There should be a large effect observed. In the case of abortion and breast cancer there are subsets of women with very high risk. For example, in the 1994 Daling study, all the teenagers who had abortions at eighteen or younger and had a family history of breast cancer developed breast cancer by the age of forty-five. The risk could not be calculated and was reported as infinity.

Now even having satisfied these criteria, the ABC link would still not be proven unless there was a sound biological basis for this risk. All the studies in the world showing that lung cancer occurs most frequently in people who carry matches in their pockets does not mean matches cause lung cancer. I believe that the biological basis for the ABC link is the most powerful and persuasive argument supporting it.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 2:58 PM


The Biological Basis

The same biology that accounts for ninety percent of all risk factors for breast cancer accounts for the ABC link. Simply stated, the biology rests on two principles.

1. The more estrogen a woman is exposed to in her lifetime, the higher her risk for breast cancer.

2. The younger a woman's breasts mature from Type 1 and 2 lobules to Type 3 and 4 lobules, the lower her risk.

If a woman starts her menstrual cycles early, e.g., at age nine, and continues to menstruate into her late fifties, she is at higher risk because she has more years exposed to monthly estrogen elevations. Through a large, recent, well-publicized study, women became aware that the estrogen in their hormone replacement therapy increased their breast cancer risk. In a similar way, birth control pills elevate breast cancer risk.

Type 1 and 2 lobules are known to be where cancers arise. Type 3 and 4 lobules are mature and resistant to carcinogens. When a child is born, she has only a small number of primitive Type 1 lobules. At puberty when estrogen levels rise they form Type 2 lobules. But it is only through the hormonal environment and length of a full-term forty-week pregnancy that there is full maturation to Type 3 and 4 lobules. This maturation protects a woman and lowers her risk of breast cancer. This is why women who undergo a full term pregnancy have a lower risk of breast cancer and why women who remain childless have a higher risk of breast cancer. It is the interplay of these two principles, estrogen exposure and breast lobule maturation, that accounts for the fact that abortion can cause breast cancer. Within a few days of conception, a woman's estrogen level rises. By the end of the first trimester estrogen levels have increased by two thousand percent. Every woman notices her breasts get sore and tender because the estrogen stimulation results in the multiplication of Type 1 and 2 lobules. It is only after thirty-two weeks that her breasts stop getting larger and mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules in preparation for the breast feeding of her child.

If abortion ends her pregnancy before full maturation of her breasts, she is left with an increased number of the immature Type 1 and 2 lobules. She now has a greater number of breast lobules where a cancer can arise. This causes her to be at greater risk for breast cancer. It is through this same biologic mechanism that any premature birth before thirty-two weeks more than doubles breast cancer risk.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 2:59 PM


Suppression of Data?

The question now arises, if it is true that abortion increases breast cancer risk, why would organized medicine not support the data? One reason is fear of the results of peer pressure. In my own case, I have worried that I would lose referrals from ob-gyns who do abortions when I have lectured on this topic. Even a family doctor who would refer numerous patients said to me, "You don't tell my patients that, do you?" I worried about my practice. I was also worried about being labeled a pro-life zealot or an anti-choice fanatic. I can understand why a Harvard professor of risk assessment at a Boston cancer institute would tell me privately that she knew abortion was a risk factor for cancer but would not bring it up in her talks on risk. She might lose her job. I have a colleague who did lose an appointment at a New York medical school just because he was quoted in The Lancet giving credence to a study supporting the ABC link.

Janet Daling, an adamantly pro-choice epidemiologist, told me she refused to speak on the topic anymore because she was tired of having rocks thrown at her. I learned what it felt like first-hand when I presented a research project in a poster session at the San Antonio Breast Symposium in December 2001. Although the abstract had been accepted six months earlier and had the word "abortion" in the title, the program director angrily accused me of using his meeting as a platform to hand out anti-abortion literature. Most troubling is that several years ago the then-president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons told me that her board did not want to have a speaker on the subject at their meeting because they felt it was "too political." I argued that it was also medical, but to no avail. The director of the Miami Breast Cancer Conference also felt it was "too political." He returned a check I had given him so that our Breast Cancer Prevention Institute could not even have an exhibit table. I am waiting for a response from the American College of Surgeons. I hope they too will not deem this topic "too political." What is so telling is that not one authority in the field of breast cancer that I have spoken to directly has said that the data is not true or that I was wrong about the science.

Perhaps another reason physicians have not acknowledged the link is the Semmelweiss Phenomenon. In 1840, forty years before the germ theory was known, a resident in obstetrics noted that there was a twenty-five percent mortality rate from childbed fever on the doctors' ward. On the midwives' floor, where there was frequent hand washing, the mortality rate was only two percent. When at his suggestion an experiment was done by having doctors wash their hands, the infection and death rate on their own ward was greatly reduced. Instead of rewarding Semmelweis and promoting hand washing to reduce mortality, he lost his job and was vilified. It seems that it was easier for doctors to let women die than change their own practices. They would have to acknowledge that the midwives had provided better care and that professors had been corrected by a lowly resident.

Women's groups such as the National Organization for Women have not brought this information out. The idea of safe and legal abortion is the foundation of their cherished reproductive rights. What if it became known that abortion is not safe but lethal to some women exercising that right? The abortion industry does not want to lose clients for its billion-dollar industry, so their trade organization, the National Abortion Federation, tries to dismiss it.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 3:02 PM


Signs of Hope

Public knowledge of abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer will not only help women obtain true informed consent; it also helps women who have had an abortion. Once a woman knows she is at higher risk, she will be more likely to get screened with mammograms. This can increase likelihood of survival should she develop cancer.

I am glad to report there are signs of hope. This past June the National Cancer Institute took down its inaccurate and misleading fact sheet on the ABC link on its website. Twenty-eight U. S. Congressmen had sent a letter to the NCI's director pointing out the errors. My older textbooks did not even mention abortion as a possible risk. The newer ones do, even if they try to dismiss the data as inconclusive. One very notable exception to this was written by a researcher who is at Georgetown University, Professor Robert Dickson, who first included it in his chapter on the molecular biology of breast cancer more than ten years ago. (2)

The issue is being discussed in the press. Crisis magazine, a Washington, D.C.-based publication, recently explored this issue in a feature article. There have been countless letters to the editor in newspapers all over the country by laymen and doctors. Miss Oregon, Brita Stream, had as her platform the abortion-breast cancer link and went on to the Miss America pageant in Atlantic City this year. This issue has also entered breast cancer research politics. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an international lay organization, has made the public aware of the issue. They have made women aware that the Susan G. Komen Foundation, an organization which raises money for breast cancer research, also gives this money to Planned Parenthood. They pointed out to Komen and its donors that Planned Parenthood caused a significant amount of breast cancer as the nation's largest abortion provider. This has placed pressure on the Komen organization to stop that practice, with some success.

A month ago I saw in my office identical-twin women. One had several abortions as a teenager and was thirty-six years old when she got breast cancer. I was able to reassure her worried sister, who had a child in her twenties, that she did not share the same risks as her twin and that most likely her biopsy would be benign. When the results came back, it was. An analysis of my own patients with breast cancer in their thirties showed thirty percent had abortions but no family history of the disease.

The most important paper concerning the abortion-breast cancer link was the 1996 meta-analysis done by Dr. Joel Brind.(3) His paper prevented someone from saying, "Some studies say yes, some studies say no." See the chart on the following page showing his meta-analysis. All results on the right of the vertical line are the ones that show a link. At the time of publication there were seventeen out of a total of twenty-three. If it had not been published, I would still be in my office wondering why I have so many thirty-year-olds with breast cancer.

When Dr. Brind's study appeared it created a furor. In response, Dr. Stuart Donnan wrote an editorial in which he said, "I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called `pro-choice,' you need at the same time to have a view which might be called `pro-information' without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data." (4) Dr. Brind likes to add "And that's from an understated Englishman."...

Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S.
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
Poughkeepsie, New York

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 3:04 PM


I realize that is a lot to read but if one is open minded then one is willing to consider these issues.

Dr. LanFranchi is on the front lines. She sees patients each day and knows the suffering they endure.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 3:05 PM


Asitis: "Oliver, let me try to explain this to you again: When you make a conclusion, it needs to be spported by your results. Example: Your results may show a corelation between two variables, say smoking and obesity. You may find that obesity is directly proportional to smoking. You can conclude that as smoking increases, so to does the incidence of obesity. Your data supports this conclusion. However, you cannot conclude from this relationship alone that smoking causes obesity. You could, however, say that the results suggest that further research is needed/might show that smoking causes obesity.

Reardon and Cameron have made the leap from seeing a corelation between two variables to saying one causes the other without the data to support this"

I understand the workings of a correlation. Trust me. The problem is that the study was attempting to suggest the likely answer for the correlation. The rebutal was not that he adamantly claimed one relationship, but that he concluded one relationship was the most likely explanation. The critique of his study was that he need to do additional work to clarify. This is the same critique for any study out there. If you critique Reardon, you should critique anything you see, and if this IS your critique, you may as well say nothing, considering that it would be ubiqutious to all other studies.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 5:27 PM


Oliver, you're going to have to point me in the direction of the Reardon study you are refrring to if I'm going to address what you just wrote.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 5:45 PM


BTW Oliver your wife says you are grumpy because some colleges don't teach students to think on their own and they'd never pass the exams without your help. well, aren't you glad they don't?

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 6:00 PM


oops! wrong post. I just added it to the correct one.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 6:03 PM


Asitis,

Here is one example of a conclusion I was able to get.

"CONCLUSIONS: Posttraumatic stress reactions were found to be associated with abortion. Consistent with previous research, the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities, particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior traumata. Study limitations preclude drawing definitive conclusions, but the findings do suggest additional cross-cultural research is warranted."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15448616?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Doesnt seem to be doing what you claimed he was doing there Asitis. Which study did you read to come up with your previous concerns?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 6:05 PM


you may as well say nothing, considering that it would be ubiqutious to all other studies.


Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 5:27 PM

Oliver, with proper controls, it is possible to say something more about a corelation.

Have you ever done any scientific research yourself by the way?

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 6:06 PM


"CONCLUSIONS: Posttraumatic stress reactions were found to be associated with abortion. Consistent with previous research, the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities, particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior traumata. Study limitations preclude drawing definitive conclusions, but the findings do suggest additional cross-cultural research is warranted."

Doesnt seem to be doing what you claimed he was doing there Asitis. Which study did you read to come up with your previous concerns?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 6:05 PM

I don't remember the study offhand Oliver, but it was one where he was the primary researcher. This study here is NOT making any claims about causation, but rather merely suggesting a possibility and that further research is warranted. This is not an example of what I was referring to.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 6:11 PM


"Sleep disorders are linked with mood disorders and other psychiatric illnesses. Many women attribute sleep difficulties to abortion, but this self-diagnosis has not been tested using record-based evidence. Examination of records for 56,824 women with no known history of sleep disorders or sleep disturbances revealed that women were more likely to be treated for sleep disorders or disturbances following an induced abortion compared to a birth. The difference was most pronounced in the first 180 days after pregnancy resolution and was not significant after the third year"

Heres another one where he doesnt claim causality, just points to the correlation.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 6:15 PM


"Reproductive history information may offer insight to professionals pertaining to the likelihood of women using substances in a later pregnancy."

Heres another conclusion. What a crazy thing to conclude....right wing wacko!

I havent found anything like what youve said so far, though admitedly these are only studies that are available to me. Several of the studies required some sort of memebership to something or other.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 6:16 PM


I'll have to go back and see if I can find the post. I believe it was a study toostunned cited. As I recall it may have had something to do with mental illness among women who had abortions vs. those who had carried to term and he concluded that abortion had caused the illnesses. However, he did not have the proper controls (did not consider mental health prior to abortion) and the sampling for the abortion subjects was not random. I can't be certain - I'd have to find it.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 6:19 PM


Oliver, David Reardon activist/researcher has acknowledged that his goal as a pro-lifer is to raise enough doubt in people's minds about the safety of abortion so that they do not oppose attempts to make abortion illegal:

"For the purpose of passing restrictive laws to protect women from unwanted and/or dangerous abortions, it does not matter if people have a pro-life view. The ambivalent majority of people who are willing to tolerate abortion in “some cases” are very likely to support informed consent legislation and abortion clinic regulations, for example, because these proposals are consistent with their desire to protect women. In some cases, it is not even necessary to convince people of abortion’s dangers. It is sufficient to simply raise enough doubts about abortion that they will refuse to actively oppose the proposed anti-abortion initiative. In other words, if we can convince many of those who do not see abortion to be a “serious moral evil” that they should support anti-abortion policies that protect women and reduce abortion rates, that is a sufficiently good end to justify NRS efforts. Converting these people to a pro-life view, where they respect life rather than simply fear abortion, is a second step. The latter is another good goal, but it is not necessary to the accomplishment of other good goals, such as the passage of laws that protect women from dangerous abortions and thereby dramatically reduce abortion rates."

Interesting, huh?

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 6:29 PM


If a woman’s body is designed for pregnancy, it sure isn’t designed very well, considering all the symptoms, the pain, the after-effects, and the risks of permanent disability and death.

Oh, yeah? DESIGN IT BETTER! Please, create a living, breathing human being capable of nurturing additional human beings without those symptoms. I tell you what- don't even try to design a human being- Start with any living creature. Come back here with a single-celled organism that you created and then you can begin mocking the amazing, incomparable works of God.

Posted by: Jacqueline at February 13, 2009 6:38 PM


The question is whose interests are more important – that of the zygote or fetus or that of the woman? In my late teens, it became obvious. I side with the woman.

I AM a woman, and my children are not my competitors or enemies. Women and children are not at odds that demand you choose a "side."

Furthermore, babies don't conceive themselves. For 99% of dead babies, their was a woman that conceived that child and chose to kill her. There is an innocent baby that didn't impose on their mother's womb, but were put their by their mother's actions. So you take the side of a woman that creates a child and then chooses to kill that child when the child has done nothing to deserve that fate. If you insist on picking a side, side with the victim, not the murderer.

Posted by: Jacqueline at February 13, 2009 6:43 PM


Asitis,

I already knew that about him. That has nothing to do with his research. Remember that motives are meaningless when assessing someone's argument.

If the unibomber tried to argue that saying rude things is really mean, he would still be justified even if a hypocrite.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 6:44 PM


The question is whose interests are more important – that of the zygote or fetus or that of the woman? In my late teens, it became obvious. I side with the woman.

I AM a woman, and my children are not my competitors or enemies. Women and children are not at odds that demand you choose a "side." If a woman pits herself against the child she made, who's fault is that? Babies don't conceive themselves.

For 99% of dead babies, there was a woman that conceived that child and chose to kill her. There is an innocent baby that didn't impose on their mother's womb, but were put there by their mother's actions. So you take the side of a woman that creates a child and then chooses to kill that child when the child has done nothing to deserve that fate. If you insist on picking a side, side with the victim, not the murderer.

Posted by: Jacqueline at February 13, 2009 6:45 PM


Somebody: "The question is whose interests are more important – that of the zygote or fetus or that of the woman? In my late teens, it became obvious. I side with the woman."

Way to gloss over the issue. It isnt a strict competetion between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the woman. It is a complex conflict that ultimately strips the fetus, if denied, of all its rights permenantly, whilst strips the mother, if denied, of a part of her rights temporarily.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 6:49 PM


Asitis,

I already knew that about him. That has nothing to do with his research.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 6:44 PM

Great. You're a liar. Good to know Oliver.

And btw, Reardon's mission is a good one to be aware of when assessing his suspect research claims.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 7:20 PM


Oliver, you never answered my question. Have you ever acted done any scientific research?

And if you aren't going to be honest, don't bother answering.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 7:22 PM


Soory. That should be ".. actually done any scientific research".

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 7:23 PM


Asitis: "Great. You're a liar. Good to know Oliver."

Hm...quick to jump to unatainable conclusions there Asitis. Is this another part of your wisdom and logic? It was the first thing I read about him before I even found his research. Look it up on his Wikipedia, its right there. The line I remembered specifically was...

"“Even if pro-abortionists got five paragraphs explaining that abortion is safe and we got only one line saying it's dangerous, the seed of doubt is planted,” he wrote in his book."

This was speaking to the idea of casting doubt through research, which was linked to his idea that the "sanctify of the fetus" was of no use in the debate. I personally feel the exact opposite of him. I think that the research is meaningless unless it is backed by a clear moral imperitive to not kill preborns. His point, if I recall correctly, was that he needed to find evidence to contradict the idea that abortion is "good" for women. He feels that this evidence would loosen the feminist movement.

Asitis: "And btw, Reardon's mission is a good one to be aware of when assessing his suspect research claims."

Again, how are they suspect Asitis? You have STILL not provided ONE single error in his research methodology.

And also, one more time, motives are not sufficient to cast doubt on an argument. Otherwise anyone defending oneself in court would automatically be guilty.

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 7:37 PM


Asitis: "Oliver, you never answered my question. Have you ever acted done any scientific research?"

Of course not. What does that have to do with anything going on here?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 7:38 PM


Here's what you said earlier. It seems to me you may have known all along who Reardon is. Maybe you're not lying. But maybe you are:

I dont honestly know who these two people are.
Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 11:28 AM

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 7:46 PM


Asitis: "Oliver, you never answered my question. Have you ever acted done any scientific research?"

Of course not. What does that have to do with anything going on here?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 7:38 PM

"Of course not?" Why of course not Oliver?

And what does having conducted scientific research oneself have to do with anything????? Are you serious? C'mon Oliver think. Why might that experience and knowledge be insightful here?

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 7:50 PM


Asitis: "Here's what you said earlier. It seems to me you may have known all along who Reardon is. Maybe you're not lying. But maybe you are:"

You mean because I looked up a wikipedia article and a couple of research conclusions, I had to of known these two all along? Please. I meant what I said. I had never heard of those two people until I investigated your claims about them today.

Asitis: "Why of course not Oliver?"

Because I am a test prep teacher, and prior to that I worked as a UPS supervisor. I am not a sociologist nor am I a researcher and honestly I would think it pretty clear given my ignorance of the fields that I do not work in them.

Asitis: "And what does having conducted scientific research oneself have to do with anything????? Are you serious? C'mon Oliver think. Why might that experience and knowledge be insightful here? "

It may be insightful to help me better understand some of his research methods, but they have nothing to do with what WE are talking about right now. You are claiming that Reardon made jumps in his logic. I found several examples of his material showing that he didnt. You have yet to produce a SINGLE example of Reardon's research that has done what you claim that it has done. So, yeah, what the hell does that have to do with my job or experience with research personally?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2009 9:08 PM


Oliver,I was wondering if through any undergraduate or graduate studies or work experience you had done any scientific research. Pretty fair question, I thought. I didn't necessarily think you were a sociologist. I am not a sociologist either, but I have conducted my own scientific research and been involved in others and hence know a thing or two about experimental design, data collection and anaysis.
This is valuable when reviewing other researc

I'll try to find that post when I get a chance. Or you can. It's in here somewhere.Now, I'm off to bed. i have a long and early run in the morning.

Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 10:03 PM


I think I can out do you on this one - I had a research assistant who was 5 months pregnant (21 weeks!) who did not know she was pregnant. She was 35 and a brilliant Polish scientist that I had the opportunity of working with. But she rarely had periods and often had stomach troubles. It seems unbelievable to me, but there it is.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 2:21 PM


Isn't that funny? I just remember that every time I got up out of a sitting position I felt like I was going to throw up. It didn't last long, just a few seconds. And boy was I tired! I never had regular periods at that time so it didn't even occur to me.


I do know a girl who didn't know she was pregnant until she was in labor - but really I think that was more a defensive mind than real ignorance. (At least toward the end.) She was in college and unmarried so not the best of circumstances. She eventually did marry the father and now they have three more children. :)

Posted by: Kristen at February 13, 2009 10:37 PM


Well, Carla, that's no skin off my teeth.

Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 1:20 PM

Josephine,
I think you are mixing up two different sayings here.
1) "that's no skin off my back" and
2) "by the skin of your teeth".

And teeth don't have skin.

Posted by: truthseeker at February 14, 2009 3:28 AM


Truthseeker, while teeth don't have skin, "no skin off my teeth" is a saying. Have you not also heard of "by the skin of our teeth"?

Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 4:57 AM


Kristen: the joke was even more on me because I didn't know she was pregnant until she was 8 months! She was able to hide her pregnancy with her lab coat! I didn't notice until I bent down to get a beaker out of the cabinent and happened to look over and WOW! What a surprise I got!
She had defected from Poland and thought she could be fired for being pregnant or would be forced to get an abortion!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 14, 2009 6:39 AM


Oliver: the fact remains that Reardon's studies and those of other researchers on the effects of abortion on women are continuing to be supported by ongoing research.

For example:

A new study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 3Oct07 finds that abortion is the best predictor of whether women will contract breast cancer. Abortion also is a better indicator of future breast cancer issue than six other commonly used factors.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf

Teens abortion and suicide:
4. Rue VM et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16 (2004).

Abortion & suicide:

Gissler M et. al., "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4, 1996

Gissler M, “Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” European J. Public Health 15(5):459-63, 2005.

and there is this one:

Coleman PK et al., Induced abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance abuse disorders: Isolating the effects of abortion in the national comorbidity survey, Journal of Psychiatric Research (2008)

On 28 November08, an American study was published "Induced abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance abuse disorders: Isolating the effects of abortion in the national comorbidity survey", Journal of Psychiatric Research, November 2008


A research study featuring numerous controls and a national data set finds a link between abortion and psychiatric disorders.

"The study refutes the report the American Psychiatric Association released in August claiming abortion causes no mental health issues for women. The research team found induced abortions result in increased risks for a myriad of mental health problems ranging from anxiety to depression to substance abuse disorders."

*************************************************


There is a ton of research to back up early researcher claims and what most of us know-
abortion harms women and can have a devastating effect on those who love them.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 14, 2009 7:19 AM


Asitis: ""no skin off my teeth" is a saying"

Sorry, I know this is tangental to the issue, but seriously. This is no a saying. Its "no skin off my back" and "by the skin o' my teeth." Granted, the second statement doesnt make any more logical sense than what Josephine said, and it has no purpose and really she shouldnt even have been called on it because people do this all the time, but your support of her in this case is absolutley ridiculous. Do you just support whatever Josephine does period? Im starting to think that YOU have ulterior motives here. Are you trying to live your life through her? Is she secretly your daughter? Are you in love with her? Why would you support her in this case when she is clearly wrong?

By the way, I think they call this kind of thing a mixed metaphor. I do it all the time, usually on purpose. For example I say "Ill burn that bridge when I get to it."

Posted by: Oliver at February 14, 2009 9:34 AM


Oh really Oliver? Sorry bud, but it actually IS a saying:

from idionconnection.com:
no skin off (someone's) teeth/nose
- no difficulty for someone
It will be no skin off my teeth if the meeting is not held.

from dictionary.reference.com:
no skin off one's back, nose, or teeth, Slang. of no interest or concern or involving no risk to one.

from idioms.freedictionary.com:
no skin off someone's teeth and no skin off someone's nose

I could go on, but I think you get the message!

I'm really beginning to wonder about you Oliver. Your lack of support of her in this case is absolutley ridiculous. Do you just argue whatever Josephine does period? Im starting to think that YOU have ulterior motives here. Are you trying to dump on her life because you aren't happy with yours? Is she secretly an ex lover? Are you still in love with her? Why would you argue her in this case when she is clearly right?

Fig. no difficulty for someone; no cause for concern to someone

Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 11:25 AM


"The study refutes the report the American Psychiatric Association released in August claiming abortion causes no mental health issues for women. The research team found induced abortions result in increased risks for a myriad of mental health problems ranging from anxiety to depression to substance abuse disorders."

Sure toostunned, Physicians for Life may say this about research done by Reardon and his associate Coleman, but did the research actually show that abortion CAUSES mental health issues? Or did they actually find a corelation between the two? Hmmmmmm

Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 12:12 PM


Oh and same thing for the Finnish studies toostunned. They showed a corelation between suicide and abortion, but not that abortion was the cause. Yes, there's a difference.

Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 1:41 PM


.... and same goes for the other Coleman and the Vue study.... they also only showed a corelation. And they suggested that further research would be required to show causation.

Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 2:22 PM


trolls, and more trolls ah....
so dense too!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 14, 2009 6:32 PM


trolls, and more trolls ah....
so dense too!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 14, 2009 6:32 PM

Haha toostunned! I believe the word is "thorough" tough, not dense.

Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 7:19 PM


hahahahahah!!!!! rotflmao!!!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 14, 2009 9:03 PM


Good to hear! Glad you're not too miffed by my correcting you on a few things above. Sorry, but they needed to be pointed out. You can't say something has been refuted when in fact it has not.

Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 9:11 PM